Ethical responsibilities of editorial board members and reviewers

• After anonymous (blind) peer review by members of the editorial board, the compilation publishes articles containing the results of scientific research on the introduction of new results of basic and applied research in the field of civil engineering and construction.

• All responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript rests with the editor who fits these responsibilities carefully, taking into account the recommendations of the reviewer (Doctor of Science in relevant scientific field) regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted. Manuscripts can also be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not fit the profile of the collection.

• The editor, editorial board members should not make available to other persons any information regarding the content of the manuscripts under review, except for those involved in the professional evaluation of the manuscript. After receiving positive feedback from the reviewer and the editor, the article can be published in the collection and published on the relevant electronic resources.

• In accordance with international law, copyrights for electronic information resources, materials of a site, an electronic collection, or a project may not be reproduced in full or in part in any form (electronic or printed) without the prior written consent of the authors and the edition of the collection. The use of the materials of the collection in the context of other documents must be accompanied by a mandatory reference to the source. It is forbidden to publish and / or distribute the materials of the collection to third parties or organizations on paper or electronic media. In order to prevent authors from using third-party original material without mentioning them as co-authors or mentioning them at the end of an article of thanks, and to avoid situations involving co-authors with authority in the scientific interests of the author but not involved in writing (so-called "ghostwriting" "And" guest authorship "), editorial boards and editorial boards have the right to request detailed information about the participation and contribution of each author in writing the article and its individual components (idea, prerequisites, methods, experiment lni data, etc.). In the event that the aforementioned facts are revealed, the editorial board is obliged to inform the relevant instances and scientific societies where the author works or is a member.

• The reviewer should provide a timely response to the article with a clearly stated conclusion regarding the recommendation of the article for publication. If there are any defects in the manuscript that can be corrected, the reviewer should outline the issues that need to be revised and notify the editor; manuscripts can be submitted for re-review after elimination of the mentioned shortcomings.

The ethical responsibilities of the authors

• Articles submitted to the editorial board must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the collection.

• Scientists have the right and the duty to defend their scientific priority. However, publication of inaccurate and inconclusive scientific results, as well as publication in non-scientific publications in order to achieve priority, are inadmissible .

• Scientist should recognize international and national copyright law. He may use information from any publication provided the source indicates and draws a clear line between his own data and that of others. Borrowing for your own publications any photographs, drawings, tables, diagrams, etc., requires, in accordance with the publishing rules, the permission of the author or the publisher.

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

• To use the original materials of third parties without mentioning them as co-authors or when expressing gratitude at the end of the article, to concede the authorship to scientific work to another person, to accept the authorship or co-authorship and, in particular, to claim it is inadmissible. It is also inadmissible to include in the co-authors persons who have authority in the field of scientific interests of the author, but not involved in writing the work. In the case of the aforementioned facts, the author is responsible to labor on research groups whose member he is.

• Scientists should not repeat their scientific publications in order to increase their number. If the publication of the same work in different journals is appropriate for the advancement of scientific achievements, the editors of the latter should be informed of the fact of publication in other publications.

• The scientist must be objective in assessing his or her own achievements. Press, radio, and television can be used to promote scientific achievement, but not one's own. When publishing a work, the scientist obeys the requirements of the publisher, but it is desirable that the scientific degrees and titles of the author should not be specified. Such information may be given in the note.

Article review

Reviewing of articles is performed independently by two doctors of engineering or one doctor of science, if the co-author of the article is a doctor of science or professor. One of the reviewers is necessarily a Ukrainian or foreign member of the editorial board.

The reviewer submits to the editorial board a written or electronic review confirming that the article complies with the requirements, possible comments and conclusions regarding acceptance of the article for publication or its rejection. The review form is outlined below, which contains criteria for accepting or rejecting the article.

For the authors of the articles the review is anonymous, the names of the reviewers are not mentioned in the issues of the collection. The review period is no more than two weeks.

Comments of the reviewers in need of correction are forwarded to the author by the responsible secretary of the collection. The author's replies and the corrected version of the article are again forwarded to the reviewer. An article can only be published if there are two positive reviews.


Didrichsona st.,4, Odessa, 65029

Odessa State Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture (OSACEA)

Phone:  (067) 559-12-99,
(050) 415-56-08