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 7.1 ‒ 2006 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.
REVIEW OF ARTICLES
Reviewing of articles is produced independently by two Doctors of Engineering Science or a PhD, if a co-author is a Doctor of Sciences or Professor. One of the reviewers is required to be a Ukrainian or a foreign member of the Editorial Board of the collection of works.
Reviewer in written or electronic form, presents the review to the Editorial Board which confirms compliance with the requirements of article, comments and a conclusion about acceptance of the article for publication or its rejection. Review form is given below, it contains the criteria by which the article is accepted or rejected.
For authors the review is anonymous, the names of reviewers are not disclosed in the editions of the collection. The deadline is in less than two weeks.
The comments of the reviewers to be corrected and forwarded to the author by the responsible Secretary of the collection. Author's response and the revised paper is again sent to the reviewer. The article can be published only if there are two positive reviews.
street Didrichson, 4, Odessa, 65029
Odessa State Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture