Modern construction and architecture

Ethical Responsibilities of Members of the Editorial Board and Reviewers

• After anonymous (blind) review by members of the editorial board, the collection publishes articles that contain the results of scientific research on the introduction of new results of fundamental and applied research in the field of construction and civil engineering.

• All editorial responsibility for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript takes the editor who fulfills these duties prudently and mindfully, taking into account the recommendations of the reviewer (Doctor of Sciences of the respective scientific direction) concerning the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted to the editor. Also, manuscripts may be rejected without a review if the editor believes that they do not meet the collection profile.

• The editor, members of the Editorial Board should not give other persons access to any information on the content of the manuscripts that are under consideration, except for persons involved in the professional evaluation of this manuscript. After obtaining a positive review by the reviewer and editor, the article may be published in the collection and placed on the relevant electronic resources.

• In accordance with international copyright law, electronic materials or materials of the site may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form (electronic or printed) without the prior written consent of the authors and editorial staff of the collection. The use of collection materials in the context of other documents should be accompanied by a mandatory reference to the original source. It is prohibited to publish and / or distribute the materials of the collection by third parties or organizations on paper or electronic media. In order to prevent the authors from using original materials of third parties without mentioning them as co-authors or mentioning at the end of the article, while expressing gratitude, and avoiding situations involving co-authors of persons with authority in the field of scientific interests of the author but not involved in writing the work (so-called «ghostwriting» and «guest authorhood»), the editorial staff and the editorial board have the right to request detailed information on the participation and contribution of each of the authors in writing the article and its individual components (idea, preconditions, methods, experimental data, etc.). In case of detection of the above-mentioned facts, the editorial board is obliged to notify the relevant authorities and scientific societies where the author works or is a member.

• The reviewer should promptly provide feedback on an article with a clearly specified conclusion on the recommendation of the article to be pressed. If the manuscript contains deficiencies that can be eliminated, the reviewer should outline the issues that need to be finalized and notify the editor. Manuscripts may be submitted for re-review after eliminating these deficiencies.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Authors

• Articles sent to the editorial office must be executed in accordance with the requirements of the collection and in accordance with DSTU 8302:2015 and the Regulation of the Higher Attestation Commission of Ukraine No. 7-05 / 1 for professional editions.

• The scientist has the right and duty to protect his scientific priority. However, the publication of inaccurate and unconvincing scientific results, as well as the publication of non-scientific publications in order to achieve a priority, is inadmissible.

• The scientist recognizes international and national copyright laws. He may use information from any publication provided that it indicates the source and delivers a clear line between his own data and the achievements of others. Borrowing for own publications of any photographs, drawings, tables, diagrams, etc. requires, according to publishing rules, the permission of the author or publisher.

• When publishing the results of a study conducted by a group of scientists, all who took creative participation in the work should be indicated as authors; if necessary, their personal contribution may be indicated. Only a real creative contribution to scientific work can serve as a criterion for authorship.

• Use original materials of third parties without their name as co-authors or in the statement of gratitude at the end of the article, to give authorship on the scientific paper to another person, to take the authorship or co-authorship, and especially to claim it is invalid. It is also unacceptable to include co-authors of the persons having authority in the sphere of scientific interests of the author, but nothing to do with the writing work. In the case of the above mentioned facts, the author is responsible to labor and research teams, where he is a member.

• A scientist shouldn’t repeat his research publications with the purpose of increasing their number. If the propaganda of scientific achievements appropriate to publish the same work in different journals, the editors of the latter must be informed of the fact of publication in other journals.

• A scientist must be objective in assessing his own achievements. Press, radio and television can be used to promote academic achievement, but not himself. When publishing the work of a scientist it is subjected to the requirements of the publisher, but it is desirable that scientific degrees and titles of the author was not specified. Such information may be filled in the notes.

Policy on the use of artificial intelligence and technologies supported by artificial intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) may only be used to improve the quality of text, editing, or translation. When using AI, authors must:
‒ ensure thorough checking and editing of work results, as they may contain inaccurate information;
‒ indicate which AI tools were used in preparing the article, for what purpose and where they were applied.

Note. The policy does not apply to the use of AI tools used to check links, grammar, and spelling. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their article regardless of the use of AI.

Procedure for withdrawing published articles (retraction)

Retraction of a published article may be initiated by authors, editors, readers or relevant authorized persons. In case of information about violation of publication rules, the editorial board acts in compliance with the relevant COPE recommendations.

Grounds for retracting an article may include:
- the fact of plagiarism or illegal borrowing of data has been established;
- the presence of significant errors that make the results described in the article incorrect;
- duplication of publication of previously published material without proper reference;
- falsification of data;
- lack of information on conflict of interest that affects the interpretation of results;
- identifying violations of ethical standards during the research.

The person initiating the retraction of a published article submits a written application in paper or electronic form with justification of the reasons for the retraction. The application is accompanied by relevant justifications/evidence confirming the need for the retraction of the article. The application is considered by the editor-in-chief of the collection within 10 working days. The editor-in-chief creates a commission of three members of the editorial board to analyze the information specified in the application. The authors of the article are given the opportunity to provide their explanations. The term for consideration of the application by the commission is no more than 30 calendar days.

Based on the results of its work, the commission may reject the request for retraction of the article, suggest that the authors make corrections with mandatory indication of them, or recommend a complete retraction of the article.

In case of a decision to withdraw an article, it is marked as "withdrawn" in the electronic version of the collection, a notice of withdrawal is published with an indication of the reasons and a link to the original article. Information about the withdrawal of the article is also noted in the nearest issue of the collection. The withdrawn article remains in the collection archive with a corresponding information mark. The authors are notified of the withdrawal of the article and the relevant information is provided to indexing and scientometric databases.

Authors have the right to receive a copy of the commission's decision, to appeal its decision, to publish a comment on the decision to withdraw in a corresponding notice on the collection's website. In the event of an appeal, it is considered by the editor-in-chief within 20 calendar days.

Procedure for reviewing complaints regarding violations of ethical standards

1. This procedure establishes the procedure for considering complaints about violations of ethical norms by authors, reviewers or members of the editorial board of a collection of scientific works. It applies to issues related to plagiarism, manipulation and/or unauthorized borrowing of data, conflict of interest and other violations of academic integrity.

2. Filing a complaint.
The complaint is submitted electronically to email visnuk_odaba@odaba.edu.ua . The complaint must include the applicant's contact details, a link to the article or other material under consideration, and a detailed description of the violation with references to relevant justifications/evidence. Anonymous complaints are not considered by the editorial staff.

3. Review of the complaint.
The editor-in-chief, within 10 working days of receiving the complaint, creates a commission of three independent experts to consider it. If the complaint concerns members of the editorial board, they may not be included in the commission. In the process of considering the complaint, the commission has the right to involve the necessary experts, request additional materials and explanations, and hold consultations with all interested parties. The term for considering the complaint by the commission should not exceed 30 calendar days. During the consideration, confidentiality is guaranteed to all participants in the process.

4. Based on the results of considering the complaint, the commission may make the following decisions:
‒ Reject the complaint as unfounded.
‒ Acknowledge the violation and propose a solution.
‒ Recognize the violation as serious and take appropriate measures. The main options for measures are: refuse to publish the article, withdraw the published article, prohibit authors from submitting articles for a certain period, provide proposals for changing the composition of the editorial board, etc.

5. The parties to the conflict have the right to receive information about the complaint review process, present their explanations and evidence, and may also appeal the commission's decision.

6. The decision of the commission may be appealed within 15 calendar days. If an appeal is filed, it should be considered by the editor-in-chief within 20 calendar days. The decision of the editor-in-chief will be final.

Address

street Didrichson, 4, Odessa, 65029

Odessa State Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Tel: +38-048-700-06-08
Email: visnuk_odaba@ogasa.org.ua