Collection of the scientific papers

The editorial board of the collection “Regional Problems of Architecture and Urban Planning” follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE: https://publicationethics.org/) in the processes of manuscript submission, peer review, and publication.

The journal’s policy is aimed at preventing unethical publication practices, including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, inappropriate authorship, and other violations of academic integrity, in accordance with the general principles and standards recognized by the scientific community and in line with national legislation and international guidelines.

Principles of Ethical Policy

• Organization of the editorial and publishing process. The editorial board is responsible for ensuring integrity, objectivity, and transparency at all stages of manuscript submission, review, and publication, including systematic verification of compliance with academic integrity standards.
• Compliance with legislation and international standards. The editorial policy takes into account the requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine regarding academic integrity, as well as the recommendations of leading international organizations (in particular COPE: https://publicationethics.org/).
• Prevention of unethical practices. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, data falsification, inappropriate attribution of authorship, and other forms of academic misconduct, and provides mechanisms for responding to detected violations in accordance with procedures established by the editorial board and the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine.

Ethical duties of editorial board members

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the submitted manuscripts should be published in the collection.

The Editor-in-Chief is guided by the editorial policy of the journal and current legal requirements regarding plagiarism, copyright infringement, defamation, and other ethical issues.

In making this decision, the Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or reviewers.

Manuscripts are evaluated based on their scientific merit and content, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, religious or political beliefs, ethnic origin, or nationality.

The Editor-in-Chief and all members of the editorial board must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author and reviewers (including potential reviewers).

Authors’ responsibilities

Authors submitting manuscripts to the collection acknowledge that they are responsible for the novelty and reliability of the research results and guarantee that all individuals who made a significant contribution to the presented study are listed as co-authors.

Simultaneous submission of a manuscript to more than one journal is not permitted.

Authors are not allowed to submit for consideration a previously published article (for example, an article translated into English that has already been published in another language).

Authors are required to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may influence the research results or their interpretation.

All potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed prior to manuscript submission.

The editorial board ensures an objective and fair evaluation of submitted manuscripts and prevents the occurrence of actual or potential conflicts of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers.

Authors must present the results of their research clearly and ensure an objective discussion of the findings.

The data and methods used in the study should be presented in sufficient detail and in a format suitable for analysis.

Borrowed fragments or statements must be properly cited with mandatory references to the original sources.

If the article includes previously published data or images not intended for free use, permission from the copyright holder must be obtained.

If, after publication of the article, the authors discover errors and/or inaccuracies, they must immediately inform the editorial board so that appropriate measures can be taken.

If the editorial board is informed by a third party that a published article contains a significant error, the authors are required, upon request, to promptly correct the error or provide the editorial board with evidence confirming the validity of the original manuscript.

Plagiarism, data fabrication, and/or image manipulation are not permitted.

Plagiarism includes copying or paraphrasing another person’s text without proper attribution, ideas, images, or appropriating research results conducted by others.

Any form of plagiarism is considered unethical conduct. If plagiarism is detected during the review process, the manuscript may be rejected.

If plagiarism is identified after publication, the editorial board may issue a correction or retract the article (with appropriate notice posted on the website).

Responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards lies with the author(s) of the article.

Responsibilities of reviewers

In order to ensure the objectivity of manuscript evaluation, the editorial board follows a double-blind peer review process.

If a selected reviewer is not confident that their expertise matches the subject area or level of the research presented in the manuscript, they must inform the editor and return the manuscript.

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

They must not be shown or discussed with others except in cases authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

Peer review must be conducted objectively, without personal criticism of the author(s). All opinions and comments should be expressed clearly and, where necessary, supported by appropriate arguments.

The remarks and evaluations must be understandable to both the author(s) and the editor.

If the reviewer believes that the article contains previously published data, conclusions, arguments, or images, they must support their opinion with an appropriate reference.

In case of substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any previously published article (scientific work), the reviewer must inform the editor.

The reviewer must not use or disclose any unpublished information, arguments, or conclusions contained in the manuscript submitted for review.

The reviewer is required to provide their review no later than the deadline established by the editorial board.

The collection of scientific papers “Regional Problems of Architecture and Urban Planning” adheres to the ethical standards defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE: https://publicationethics.org/), namely:

• transparency in the processes of manuscript submission, peer review, and publication;
• impartiality and independence of editors and reviewers;
• academic integrity: prevention of plagiarism, falsification, duplicate publication, and other unethical practices;
• correct authorship: clear identification of each author’s contribution;
• handling of complaints: availability of open procedures for considering appeals and ethical complaints;
• retraction and correction of articles: established procedures for issuing corrections, retractions, and notices of errors.

The editorial board of the collection takes into account the recommendations of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), whose principles for editors are applicable across all scientific fields in a broader context:

• editorial independence: editorial decisions are made without pressure from administration, sponsors, institutions, or commercial interests;
• conflicts of interest: all authors, reviewers, and editors are required to declare any conflicts of interest;
• peer review: ensuring objective, fair, and timely expert evaluation;
• transparency of funding: disclosure of information about grants, sponsors, and sources of research funding;
• support for early-career researchers: promoting publication opportunities for researchers at the beginning of their scientific careers.

The collection supports the principles of fair evaluation of scientific activity set out in the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA): not limiting assessment to bibliometric indicators, but evaluating research based on its quality, originality, and contribution to science;

valuing different types of research outputs such as software, data, algorithms, and technical solutions, not only publications;

recognizing interdisciplinary research as equivalent to traditional publications; and promoting open science, including the publication of preprints and open access to data and code.

The editorial board also takes into account other contemporary principles, in particular:

Open Access – promoting open access to scientific results;

FAIR principles for data (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) – ensuring that data are findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable;

Plan S – supporting publication policies in open-access journals and repositories.

Ethical principle regarding the use of artificial intelligence – ensuring transparency and accountability in cases where artificial intelligence is used in research.

Policy on the use of artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies

Artificial intelligence (AI) may be used only to improve text quality, editing, or translation. When using AI, authors must:

• – ensure careful verification and editing of the results, as they may contain inaccurate information;
• – indicate which AI tools were used in preparing the article, for what purpose, and in which parts of the manuscript they were applied.

The editorial board reserves the right to check manuscripts for the use of artificial intelligence.

For this purpose, automated detection tools, expert peer review, and additional requests to authors may be used.

Editors do not use AI to make decisions that require critical thinking or the formation of any substantive judgment.

Reviewers do not use AI to make decisions that require critical thinking or to form any substantive judgment regarding the manuscript.

Note: This policy does not apply to the use of AI tools for reference checking, grammar, or spelling correction.

Authors bear full responsibility for the content of their article regardless of the use of AI.

Procedure for Retraction of Published Articles

This procedure establishes the process for the retraction of articles published in the collection “Modern Construction and Architecture”.

The purpose of retraction is to correct published information and ensure the integrity of scientific publications.

The retraction of a published article may be initiated by the authors, the editorial board, readers, or relevant authorized persons.

In cases where there is information about a violation of publication rules, the editorial board acts in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Grounds for article retraction may include:

• confirmed plagiarism or improper use of data;
• significant errors that render the results presented in the article invalid;
• duplicate publication of previously published material without proper citation;
• data fabrication or falsification;
• failure to disclose conflicts of interest that may affect the interpretation of results;
• detection of ethical violations during the research process.

A person initiating the retraction of a published article must submit a written request in either paper or electronic form, providing justification for the retraction.

The request must be accompanied by relevant supporting evidence confirming the necessity of retraction. The request is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief within 10 working days.

The Editor-in-Chief establishes a commission consisting of three members of the editorial board to analyze the information provided in the request.

The authors of the article are given the opportunity to provide explanations. The review period by the commission shall not exceed 30 calendar days.

Based on the results of its work, the commission may reject the request for retraction of the article, propose that the authors make corrections with mandatory indication of the changes, or recommend full retraction of the article.

In the case of a decision to retract an article, it is marked as “retracted” in the electronic version of the journal, and a retraction notice is published indicating the reasons and providing a reference to the original article.

Information about the retraction is also included in the next issue of the journal.

The retracted article remains in the journal archive with an appropriate notice.

Authors of the article are informed about the retraction, and relevant information is provided to indexing and scientometric databases.

Authors have the right to receive a copy of the commission’s decision, to appeal the decision, and to publish a comment on the retraction decision in the corresponding notice on the journal’s website.

In case of an appeal, it is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief within 20 calendar days.

Procedure for Handling Complaints Regarding Ethical Violations

1. This procedure establishes the process for handling complaints regarding violations of ethical standards by authors, reviewers, or members of the editorial board of the collection of scientific papers.

It applies to issues related to plagiarism, data manipulation and/or improper use of data, conflicts of interest, and other violations of academic integrity.

2. Submission of a complaint.

A complaint must be submitted electronically to the email address: axi.pnam@gmail.com. The complaint must include the complainant’s contact details, a reference to the article or other material under consideration, and a detailed description of the alleged violation with supporting evidence and/or justification.

Anonymous complaints are not considered by the editorial board.

3. Review of the complaint

Within 10 working days of receiving the complaint, the Editor-in-Chief establishes a commission of three independent experts to review it.

If the complaint concerns members of the editorial board, they may not be included in the commission.

During the review process, the commission has the right to involve additional experts, request supplementary materials and explanations, and consult with all interested parties.

The review period shall not exceed 30 calendar days. Confidentiality is guaranteed for all participants during the review process.

4. Outcomes of the complaint review. Based on the results of the review, the commission may take the following decisions:

• Reject the complaint as unfounded.
• Confirm the violation and propose a possible correction.
• Determine that the violation is serious and apply appropriate measures. Possible measures include: rejection of the manuscript, retraction of a published article, temporary ban on submissions from the authors, recommendations for changes in the composition of the editorial board, and other relevant actions.

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

6. Appeal procedure. The commission’s decision may be appealed within 15 calendar days.

In the case of an appeal, it is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief within 20 calendar days. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.