For authors

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in manuscript preparation. IRIS recognizes the potential of AI tools, when used responsibly, to help researchers work efficiently, gain critical insights fast and achieve better outcomes. Increasingly, these tools, including AI agents and deep research tools, are helping researchers to synthesize complex literature, provide an overview of a field or research question, identify research gaps, generate ideas and provide tailored support for tasks such as content organization and improving language and readability. Authors can use AI tools to support them in these tasks. However, these tools must never be used as a substitute for human critical thinking, expertise and evaluation.

AI tools should always be applied with human oversight and control. Ultimately, authors are responsible and accountable for the contents of their work. This includes accountability for:

Carefully reviewing and verifying the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and impartiality of all AI-generated output (including checking the sources, as AI-generated references can be incorrect or fabricated). Editing and adapting all material thoroughly to ensure the manuscript represents the author’s authentic and original contribution and reflects their own analysis, interpretation, insights and ideas. Ensuring the use of any tools or sources, AI-based or otherwise, is made clear and transparent to readers — for the use of AI tools we require a disclosure statement upon submission. Ensuring the manuscript is developed in a way that safeguards data privacy, intellectual property and other rights, by checking the terms and conditions of any AI tool that is used.

Responsible use of AI tools

Authors must check the terms and conditions of any AI tool that they use to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of their data and input, including their unpublished manuscripts, is maintained. Particular care should be taken with any personally identifiable data. Authors should check for factual errors and for any potential bias. Authors should also check the terms and conditions of any AI tool they wish to use to ensure that, they only grant to the AI tool the right to use their materials to provide the service to them and that they do not grant to the AI tool any other rights to the materials that they input into the AI tool (including without limitation the right to train the AI tool on those materials). They must also ensure that the AI tool does not impose constraints on the use of outputs from the AI tool in a way that could restrict the subsequent publication of the relevant article.

Disclosure

Authors should disclose the use of AI tools for manuscript preparation in a separate AI declaration statement included in their manuscript upon submission. This statement will appear in the published article to ensure transparency. Authors should document their use of AI, including the name of the AI tool used, the purpose of its use, and the extent of their oversight. Declaring the use of AI tools supports transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers, editors and contributors and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the relevant AI tool. Please note: Basic checks of grammar, spelling and punctuation do not need a declaration statement. However, when an AI tool makes substantive changes to sentence structure or organization of a part of the text, this should be disclosed. Authors are not required to disclose the use of AI tools or features within specialist disability-related assistive technology, provided these are used solely for accessibility purposes. Where AI tools are used as part of the research process rather than manuscript preparation, this use should be described in detail in the Methods section. Authors are recommended to use the following format for their declaration:

Title of section: Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript preparation process

Statement: During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.

Authorship: Authors should not list AI tools as an author or co-author, nor cite AI tools as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. Each (co-) author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved and authorship requires the ability to approve the final version of the work and agree to its submission. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that the work is original and has not been previously published, that the stated authors qualify for authorship, and the work does not infringe third party rights.

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in figures, images and artwork

The use of AI tools for the creation of figures, images and artwork is only permitted in specific circumstances. Images generally fall into three categories, and the permitted use of AI tools differs for each of these categories, as described below.

Explanatory images illustrate concepts, processes or relationships (such as flow charts, decision trees, timelines or schematic conceptual illustrations). Authors may use AI tools to support the creation of certain types of explanatory images for publication, such as flow charts, decision trees, timelines, schematic conceptual illustrations, or experimental workflow diagrams.

Where AI tools are used for this purpose, the principles of responsible use, human oversight, transparency, disclosure and authorship, as described in the section on “Authorship” apply. The use of AI tools should be disclosed in the caption of each image (including the specific tool, version, and how the tool was used) and in the general AI disclosure statement in the article.

Research and data images present research data or results. These include (a) data visualizations, which are generated from underlying datasets through analytical, computational, or statistical workflows (such as plots, charts, graphs, or heatmaps) and (b) primary research images, which represent primary observed or experimental data (such as microscopy, histology, western blots, radiology scans, or patient images). Data visualizations present results derived from underlying datasets through analytical, computational, or statistical workflows (such as plots, charts, graphs, or heatmaps).

AI tools must not be used to fabricate results, invent or alter underlying data, or generate figures that are not faithfully derived from the underlying data and methods used in the research.

AI tools may be used to support the creation of data visualizations only when the visual output is directly derived from underlying data. Such visualizations must be created via reproducible analytical, computational, or statistical methods that are clearly reported within the Methods section. Where AI tools are used in the generation of data visualizations, authors should disclose the name of the model or tool, the version used, and the developer or manufacturer, in the Methods section. Authors should adhere to the AI tools’ usage policies and ensure proper attribution where required. Authors may be asked to provide documentation of their AI use and the original, unprocessed images for editorial assessment.

Primary research images represent primary observed or experimental data (such as microscopy, histology, western blots, radiology scans, or patient images).

AI tools must not be used to create or alter images that represent primary observed or experimental data that were not directly obtained in the research. This includes adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance, which should only be done using established image processing software. Please refer to our artwork instructions for more information.

Use of AI tools in research methods

This policy does not prevent the use of AI tools in formal research design or research methods (such as in AI-assisted imaging approaches used for collection and/or interpretation of the underlying research data or predictive modelling of clinical outcomes based on patient data). Where the use of AI tools forms part of the research design or research methods, the use of the tools must be described in a reproducible manner in the Methods section. This should include the name of the model or tool, the version used, and the developer or manufacturer, where applicable. Authors should adhere to the tools’ usage policies and ensure proper attribution where required.

Graphical abstracts and cover art

Graphical abstracts and cover art are created to visually summarize or represent the article rather than form part of the scientific content of the manuscript. General-purpose generative AI image tools must not be used to create graphical abstracts. Graphical abstracts are often complex visual summaries that combine multiple graphical elements, icons, and design components.

Authors are encouraged to use dedicated scientific illustration tools when preparing graphical abstracts. Dedicated illustration tools offer well-defined licensing terms which support responsible use of copyrighted and intellectual property.

The use of AI tools in the creation of journal cover art may in some cases be permitted. Authors must obtain prior permission from the journal editor and publisher before submitting AI-generated cover art. Authors must also demonstrate that all necessary permissions have been obtained for any third-party material used and ensure that appropriate content attribution is provided.

Author responsibilities

Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and originality of all images submitted for publication. This includes verifying that the concepts presented are accurate and that all images reflect the author’s own work and ideas. Where images are based on existing artwork or graphics, appropriate attribution must be provided and permission from any relevant rights holder must be obtained before submission. Images that duplicate or refer to existing copyrighted images, real people, or others’ identifiable products or brands must not be generated, nor any likeness of an individual’s voice.

For reviewers

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal peer review process. Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into an AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.

Reviewers are responsible for the scientific assessment and judgement of the manuscripts they are evaluating. AI tools cannot replace a reviewer’s critical thinking or independent evaluation as there is a risk that the technology may generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions. Reviewers remain fully responsible and accountable for the content of their review reports.

AI tools may therefore only be used in a supportive capacity, for example to improve the language and structure of a review report, or to assist with a background literature search, provided that confidentiality is maintained and human control and oversight are exercised. Reviewers should only use private AI tools to assist in the review process and disclose AI use in their review reports, including the tool used and purpose of the use. Basic checks for spelling and grammar do not need to be disclosed.

Suggested disclosure statement: During the preparation of this report, I used [NAME OF TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, I reviewed and edited the content as needed and I take full responsibility for its content.

For editors

Academic editors play a vital role in representing and upholding the profile and reputation. Managing the editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. When managing the evaluation of a manuscript, the manuscript must be treated as a confidential document.

Editors should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into an AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.

Editors are responsible for the editorial assessment and decision-making process. AI tools cannot replace an editor’s critical thinking, independent evaluation or final decision-making. Editors remain fully responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision and its communication to authors.

Editors may therefore only use AI tools in a supportive capacity, for example to improve the language or structure of their decision letters, or to assist with a background literature search, provided that confidentiality is maintained and human control and oversight are exercised.

Editors should only use private AI tools to assist in the editorial process. Publisher will inform authors, through the editorial communications, that AI tools may be used in a supportive capacity in the editorial process.

Our reviewers are only PhD with a history of publications indexed in Scopus.

Full Paper are being reviewed (Blind review).

Сriteria for reviewers to evaluate submissions

1. All the papers, submitted for publication by the Program Committee.

2. Review process is anonymous for the reviewers as well as for the author.

3. After reviewing the paper may be rejected, sent to the author for revision, or accepted for publication.

4. The review should include:

– General evaluation of the paper’s content and principal judgment on whether it could be published;

– The specific enumeration of errors in the methodology and tools (if any);

– Suggestions for improving the text.

5. Upon receipt of an unfavorable verdict of the reviewer the paper is discussed on the program committee meeting, which makes a decision on rejection of the article or the need for further review by an independent expert.

6. In case of paper’s rejection, the author sent a notification letter.

7. The procedure for review and approval of articles is from 1 to 2 months.

8. All reviewers are acknowledged experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials. To be included as a reviewer, you must hold a PhD or doctorate in engineering or physics and mathematics. The conference annually brings together scientists from around the world in the fields of telecommunications, radio engineering, and electronics, most of whom hold PhDs or are preparing to defend their dissertations and use this event to review their scientific papers.
A reviewer of scientific papers should have a history of publications indexed in Scopus. Please provide your Scopus ID. We need to know the reviewer’s area of scientific interest in order to send them papers on the topic.

We are not using student reviewers.

Every participant pays arrangement fee. Besides, the Conference doesn’t allows distance participation and if the speaker is absent, he or she will lost the ability of the report to the next conference.

Format

1. All files should be submitted as a MS Word document.

2. Papers should be full 4-12 pages in IEEE format.

3. Paper to be submitted in English. A title of not more than 15 words should be provided.

4. Author Details (in English)

Details should be supplied on the Article Title Page including:

* Full name of each author

* Affiliation of each author

* Full postal address of the affiliation

* E-mail address of each author

Structured Abstract (in English)

Abstract should be: informative (no general words), original, relevant key content and research findings); structured, concise (between 100 and 150 words).
* Purpose (mandatory)
* Design/methodology/approach (mandatory)
* Findings (mandatory)
* Research limitations/implications (if applicable)
* Practical implications (if applicable)
* Social implications (if applicable)
* Originality/value (mandatory)
It is appropriate to describe the research methods/methodology if they are original or of interest for this particular research. For papers concerned with experimental work describe your data sources and data procession technique.

Describe your results as precisely and informatively as possible. Include your key theoretical and experimental results, factual information, revealed interconnections and patterns. Give special priority in your abstract to new results and long-term impact data, important discoveries and verified findings that contradict previous theories as well as data that you think have practical value.

Conclusions could be associated with recommendations, estimates, suggestions, hypotheses described in the paper.

Use the language typical of research and technical documents to compile your abstract and avoid complex grammatical constructions. The text of the abstract should include key words of the paper.

Keywords (in English)
Please provide about 5 keywords on the Article Title Page, which encapsulate the principal topics of the paper.

Figures

All figures should be of high quality (300 dpi), legible and numbered consecutively with arabic numerals. All figures (charts, diagrams, line drawings, web pages/screenshots, and photographic images) should be submitted in electronic form preferably in color as separate files, that match the following parameters:

References

References to other publications must be in IEEE style and carefully checked for completeness, accuracy and consistency.

1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.

2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.

3. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.

4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.

5. Papers may be rejected without review if they are obviously not suitable for publication.

6. The staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

7. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.

8. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one publication concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

9. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.

10. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Copyright

Submitted papers should not have been published before in their current or substantially similar form, or be under consideration for publication with another journal. All authors submitting their works acknowledge that they have disclosed all and any actual or potential conflicts of interest regarding authorship and publication of the work and will indemnify the publisher against any breach of such warranty. For ease of dissemination and to ensure proper policing of use, papers and contributions become the legal copyright of the publisher unless otherwise agreed.

When reproducing tables, figures or excerpts (of more than 400 words) from another source, it is expected that:

1. Authors obtain the necessary written permission in advance from any third party owners of copyright for the use in print and electronic formats of any of their text, illustrations, graphics, or other material, in their manuscript. Permission must also be cleared for any minor adaptations of any work not created by them.

2. If an author adapts significantly any material, the author must inform the copyright holder of the original work.

3. Authors obtain any proof of consent statements.

4. Authors must always acknowledge the source in figure captions and refer to the source in the reference list.

5. Authors should not assume that any content which is freely available on the web is free to use. Authors should check the website for details of the copyright holder to seek permission for re-use.

Verbatim copying

Verbatim copying of more than 10 per cent of another person’s work without acknowledgement, references or the use of quotation marks.

Paraphrasing

Improper paraphrasing of another person’s work is where more than one sentence within a paragraph or section of text has been changed or sentences have been rearranged without appropriate attribution. Significant improper paraphrasing (more than 10 per cent of a work) without appropriate attribution is treated as seriously as verbatim copying.

Re-using parts of a work without attribution

Re-use of elements of another person’s work, for example a figure, table or paragraph without acknowledgement, references or the use of quotation marks. It is incumbent on the author to obtain the necessary permission to reuse elements of another person’s work from the copyright holder.

Self plagiarism

Our requirement is that all authors sign a copyright form that clearly states that their submitted work has not been published before. If elements of a work have been previously published in another publication, the author is required to acknowledge the earlier work and indicate how the subsequent work differs and builds upon the research and conclusions contained in the previous work. Verbatim copying of an author’s own work and paraphrasing is not acceptable and we recommend that research should only be reused to support new conclusions.

We recommend that authors cite all previous stages of publication and presentation of their ideas that have culminated in the final work, including conference papers, workshop presentations and listserv communications.

We take all cases of plagiarism very seriously being aware of the potential impact an allegation of plagiarism can have on a researcher’s career. Therefore, we have procedures in place to deal with alleged cases of plagiarism.

In order for us to take an unbiased approach, we investigate each case thoroughly, seeking clarification from all affected parties. If we are approached by a third party with an allegation of plagiarism, we would always seek a response from the original author(s) or copyright holder(s) before we decide on a course of action. We will not be influenced by other parties and will form our decisions in an unbiased and objective manner.

Editors are not obliged to discuss individual cases of alleged plagiarism with third parties. We reserve the right not to proceed with a case if the complainant presents a false name or affiliation or acts in an inappropriate or threatening manner towards editorial staff.