INSTRUCTION
The manuscript should follow IMRAD Standard

Title.
The title may be reprinted in bibliographies and subject indexes, stored in bibliographic databases and cited in other articles. Therefore, the title is an extremely important component of the paper. A good title of a research paper should:
– Limit to 12 words
– Be easy to understand
– Describe the contents of the paper accurately and specifically
– Avoid abbreviations and jargon
– Not include any verb
– Not contain low-impact words such as ''Some notes on..'' ''Investigations on..'' ''Study of..''
– Report the subject of the research rather than the results
– Follow the style preference of the target journal.
Abstract.
The Abstract is a short version of the full paper. 150–250 words,
The Abstract starts with a statement of rationale and objectives and reports the methods used, the main results including any newly observed facts, and the principal conclusions and their significance.
The Abstract should not contain:
• Abbreviations or acronyms
• References to tables or figures in the paper, Literature citations
• General statements

1 Introduction
Introduction defines the nature and extent of the problems studied, relates the research to previous work (usually by a brief review of the literature clearly relevant to the problem), (''Studies showed that …''), or (''Studies have shown that …'').
Introduction explains the objectives of investigation (''The objective of the current study was…'') and defines any specialized terms or abbreviations to be used in what follows.
Introduction leads logically to the hypothesis or principal theme of the paper.
Do not repeat well-known facts nor state the obvious.

2 Materials and Methods
The purpose of this section is to present what has been done, how, and when, and how the data were analyzed and presented.
This section should provide all the information needed to allow another researcher to judge the study or actually repeat the experiment.
The section should include the following:
• Description of the study location (climate, soil, etc., to the extent such information is relevant to the study)
• Materials used, with exact technical specifications.
• Assumptions made and their rationale
• Statistical and mathematical procedures used to analyze and summarize the data.Methods followed should be described, usually in chronological order, with as much precision and detail as necessary. Standard methods need only be mentioned, or may be described by reference to the literature.
If the method is new it should be described in detail.

3 Results
This section presents the new knowledge; therefore, it is the core of the paper. The value of the paper depends on what is contained in this (Results) section, and it must be presented in an absolutely clear manner.
It is usually easiest to follow the results if they are presented in the same order as the objectives are presented in the Introduction.
Some guidelines on presenting the results :
• Present the results simply and clearly
• Report only representative data rather than (endlessly) repetitive data
• Do not report large masses of data; reduce them to statistically analyzed summary forms and present in tables or figures along with essential statistical information to facilitate understanding and comparing them
• Repeat in the text only the most important findings shown in tables and graphs; in other words, do not repeat in the text all or many of the data presented in tables and figures
• Include negative data —what was not found—only if useful for interpreting the results
• Include only tables and figures that are necessary, clear, and worth reproducing
• Avoid verbose expressions: e.g., instead of saying ''It is clearly shown in"
Tables and figures are an integral part of a well-written scientific paper, and they appear in the Results section (but there are exceptions). While tables present accurate numbers, figures show trends and features.
Do not present the same data in tables and graphs.

4 Discussion
This is the section where the authors explain meanings and implications of the results. The section pulls everything together and shows the importance and value of the work and is therefore the most innovative and difficult part of the paper to write. The authors' skill in interpreting the results in the light of known facts and using the results as evidence for innovative explanations of the observed behavior should push the frontiers of knowledge and arouse the readers' enthusiasm. Without such an engaging discussion, the reader may leave saying ''So what?'' and move on to other, more interesting papers.
A good discussion should:
• Not repeat what has already been said in the review of literature
• Relate the results to the questions that were set out in the Introduction
• Show how the results and interpretations agree, or do not agree, with current knowledge on the subject, i.e., previously published work
• Explain the theoretical background of the observed results
• Indicate the significance of the results
• Suggest future research that is planned or needed to follow up
• Deal with only the results reported in the study
• Stay away from generalizations and conjectures that are not substantiated by the results presented
Mismatch between stated objectives and discussion/conclusion is a very common problem in many manuscripts. Often, authors make superficial statements such as ''this work agrees with the work of author X (some unknown author's work)'' as though the objective of research was to see if the results agreed with some other author's work published 20 or more years earlier. Another common problem in Discussion sections is the tendency to move away from the stated objectives and try to ''solve all problems.'' Here is the example of how differently the results obtained in a scientific research can be interpreted.
The story is about the elementary school science experiment to show the danger of alcohol:
The teacher set up two glasses, one containing water and the other containing gin. A worm was dropped into each glass. The worm in gin died immediately while the worm in water swam around merrily. When the teacher asked the pupils what the experiment showed,
little Johnny blurted out ''If you drink gin, you won't have worms.''

Conclusions
Conclusions that have been drawn from the results and subsequent discussion. Conclusions should, rather than just repeating results, state well-articulated outcomes of the study and briefly suggest future lines of research in the area based on findings reported in the paper. In poor writing, it is not uncommon to find conclusions such as ''more research is needed before conclusions can be drawn.'' In that case, why publish a paper from which conclusions cannot be drawn?

References
References are cited in the text by square brackets [1]. Two or more references at a time may be put in one set of brackets [3, 4]. The references are to be numbered in the order in which they are cited in the text (e.g., "as discussed by Smith [9]"; "as discussed elsewhere [9, 10]"). All references should be cited within the text; otherwise, these references will be automatically removed. The recommended quantity of references is 15-25. The cited papers should be relatively recent (not older than 15 years!)

REVIEW PROCESS
Only papers of original research type performing results of original studies are accepted.
The recommended size of a paper is 6-8 pages. The obligate condition for a scientific paper to submit is the accordance with IMRAD structure.
All papers pass scientific and technical review.
Within the framework of technical review all papers are thoroughly checked for the following attributes:
1) for compliance with the subject of the conference.
2) for plagiarism. Acceptable minimum of originality is 90%.
3) for acceptable English language. All papers are reviewed by a native speaker.
4) At the same time papers are checked by a technical proofreader (quality of images, absence of Cyrillic, etc.).
Hereafter the scientific review is pursued.
Scientific review of each paper is made by at least 3 reviewers. If the opinions of the reviewers are radically different, additional reviewers are appointed. We do not use "Potential Reviewers" recommended by authors. Authors have a right to answer the remarks of reviewers and submit revised versions of their papers.
Live participation in the conference is an indispensable condition for the publication of the paper. An exception is provided only for the case of "poster-presentation".

ORIGIN, MOTIVATION AND CONTRIBUTION
Papers which are prepared for publishing should be original research manuscripts, never published before and not under consideration for publication in any other conference proceeding (journal etc.). All papers are supposed to present novel research results of international interest. Papers need to be related to the main topic of the conference and conference topic fields.
The Author(s) must warrant that the manuscript is original except for such excerpts from copyrighted works (including illustrations, tables, animations and text quotations) as may be included with the permission of the copyright holder.
The Author(s) must obtain written permission to the necessary extent and that the Author(s) indicate(s) the precise sources of the excerpts in the manuscript. The Author(s) must warrant that the manuscript has not heretofore been published in whole or in part.
Each Author must warrant that his/her contribution contains no libelous or defamatory statements and does not infringe on any copyright, trademark, patent, statutory right or proprietary right of others, including rights obtained through licenses.
Number of authors in a single paper is not limited.
The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agree on its submission for publication.

HOW TO PREPARE DOC FILES FOR UPLOAD
The manuscript must be in DOC (or DOCX) file. Make sure that your paper in MS Word is in strict accordance to the author's template (download).
Be careful, no corrections will be made by the publisher after publication!
You need to carefully check your text, including authors' names, initials, authors' affiliations, references, which are the most current mistakes.
If you make mistake there, your names will not be properly indexed. Please ensure that affiliations are as full and complete as possible and include the country.
We publish papers written in good English only. Make sure that all text elements, formulas, tables, signs and inscriptions in figures are in English. The Greek alphabet is valid only in formulas.
Make sure that your list of references is presented correctly!
Online references will be linked to their original source via CrossRef only if they are correctly presented. If there are errors, the references will not be correctly indexed.
To do so, extra care should be taken when preparing reference lists. References should be cited in the text by placing sequential numbers in brackets (for example, [1], [2, 5, 7], [8-10]). They should be numbered in the order in which they are cited.
The quality of the digital images should have an original high-resolution, at least 300 dpi for figures that will be printed, and at least 150 dpi for an online only publication.

Publishing Ethics
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals. (cited by the ELSEVIER)

Duties of Authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' works should be clearly identified as such.

Data Access
Authors may be asked to provide the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication. Authors may refer to their journal's Guide for Authors for further details.

Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the reported work and that give the work appropriate context within the larger scholarly record. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.
Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.
An author should not submit for consideration in another journal a paper that has been published previously, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis or as an electronic preprint. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Confidentiality
Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper (e.g. language editing or medical writing), they should be recognised in the acknowledgements section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider (at their discretion) the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been submitted and the author must clearly flag any such request to the Editor. All authors must agree with any such addition, removal or rearrangement.
Authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. (cited by the ELSEVIER)