Smart composite in construction

Scientific publication

ISSN	2782-1919 (online)
DOI	https://doi.org/10.52957/27821919
Language of publication	Russian, English
Indexing and databases	РИНЦ ВАК К3 White list, level 3

About

Founder: Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution Of Higher Education “Yaroslavl State Technical University”

Editorial office address: 88, Moskovsky Prosp., Yaroslavl, 150023, Russia

Published with the assistance of Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences

Registration: Certificate EL No FS 77 - 79733 (27 November 2020)

Frequency: Quarterly

Subscription and distribution: Open Access

Publisher: Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution Of Higher Education “Yaroslavl State Technical University"

Publisher addres: 88, Moskovsky Prosp., Yaroslavl, 150023, Russia

ISSN: 2782-1919

Publication Ethics

Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their work and ideas. Journal Smart Composite in Construction publication ethics and research integrity help to ensure the accuracy and trustworthiness of an article. We adhere the provisions of the II World Conference on the Integrity of Scientific Research, the provisions of the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (The Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE).

Authorship and Authors' Responsibilities

1.1. When submitting a manuscript to the Journal, author (authors) confirming the manuscript has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract, a published lecture or academic thesis), the manuscript is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and checked for plagiarism from other publications. In case the work is based on material previously published as a report, preprint, proceedings, etc. author (authors) should inform the Editorial Board.

1.2. Authors are the persons who have contributed sufficiently to the research, analysis, etc. to be listed on the byline of the manuscript. Before submitting, all authors must approve the manuscript and give their consent for submission and publication. The Corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the Journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. The Corresponding Author informs the co-authors of the manuscript’s status throughout the submission, review, and publication process.

1.3. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation.

1.4. The author (authors) guarantees the absence of plagiarism in the manuscript. In case the fragments of works or statements of other persons are used, the authors provide appropriate bibliographic references or citations. In case of using of other researchers works or statements, the authors provide appropriate bibliographic references or quotations.

1.5. Authors should prevent self-plagiarism and refer to their previous works correctly. Author (authors) is not allowed to present the identical data in several publications, copying and paraphrasing the same information.

1.6. The authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

1.7. When an author (authors) discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the authors obligation to promptly notify the Journal Editor and cooperate with the Journal to retract or correct the work.

Reviewers Roles and Responsibilities

2.1. Reviewing upholds the integrity of the Journal by identifying invalid research and helping to maintain the quality of the Journal. Our collaborative peer review maximizes manuscript quality by using a rigorous, constructive, and transparent review process managed by active researchers. Moreover, reviewing is a necessary component of formal scholarly communications providing accomplished academic approach. We believe, the authors can ensure the rigorous standards of the scientific process by taking part in the peer-review system.

2.2. An insufficiently competent or time-constrained reviewer should promptly notify the Editor and request to be excluded from the manuscript review process.

2.3. Any manuscript submitted is a confidential document. This paper not be discussed with any other individual not authorised by the Editor.

2.4. The reviewer is obliged to assess the manuscript objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

2.5. Reviewers should pay attention to substantial drawbacks and gaps in the references. Any statement (argument, conclusion, etc.) published previously in the manuscript should be accompanied by an appropriate reference. Reviewers should identify works that are relevant to the paper, which were not referred to by the authors. Every allegation that an observation, conclusion, or argument has been made previously must be supported by a reference. The reviewer should also draw the Editor's attention to any significant similarities and intersections between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which he or she is personally aware.

2.6. Unpublished materials contained in the submitted manuscript should not be used in the reviewer's own research without the explicit written consent of the author (authors). The information or ideas obtained during the review should remain confidential and not be used for personal purposes until the publication of the paper and without the permission of the author (authors). Information or ideas obtained during the reviewing related to benefits should be kept confidential.

2.7. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

Editors Responsibilities

3.1. The Editor of the Journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the Journal should be published. Validation of the work in question and of its importance to researchers and readers must always support such decisions. Basis of the publication decision is always the scientific relevance of the work, its relevance and significance, scientific novelty, and reliability.

The Editor makes objective decision regardless of commercial considerations and provides fair and efficient review process.

3.2. The Editor evaluates the articles for their intellectual content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

3.3. The Editor should not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants, and the publisher, as the case may be.

3.4. Editors manage conflict situations arising in the process and use all available methods to resolve them.

3.5. An Editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published article are erroneous should promote the publication of a correction or retraction.

Publisher Responsibilities

4.1. The publisher follows principles and procedures that facilitate the performance of ethical duties by editors, reviewers, and authors in accordance with these requirements. The publisher should be sure that its overall revenue setting did not influence the Editors' decision making.

4.2. The publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers, and authors of the Journal in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should support editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

4.3. The publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors, and retractions.

Articles withdrawal and retraction

When considering situations related to the withdrawal(retraction) of articles, the Editorial Board and publisher of the Journal Smart Composites in Construction are guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Retraction Guidelines) and Alliance of Independent Regional Publishers, AIRP (The Rules of Withdrawal (Retraction) of an Article from Publication).

Reasons for withdrawal of an article:

falsification is publishing data or conclusions that were not generated by experiments or observations by data manipulation.
duplication of submitted materials in several editions.
plagiarism.

If authors wish to withdraw an article after it has been accepted, they should communicate their decision to the Journal's Editorial Board as soon as possible. The process may involve sending an official withdrawal request along with a brief explanation of the reason for the withdrawal.

After withdrawal, the article remains on the Journal's website as part of the corresponding issue and retains the DOI identifier but is marked as withdrawn one. A note to that effect is made in the issues' Table of Contents. The original article is retained unchanged except for a watermark on the .pdf indicating on each page that it is “retracted.”

The Editorial Board publishes a statement on the withdrawal of the article with the reasons and the date of retraction on the official website of the Journal and in the forthcoming printed issue.

Information on withdrawal of the article and its PDF-version with appropriate labelling are sent to the National Electronic Library (elibrary.ru) and other bibliographic bases the Journal included. The information is also submitted to the Alliance of Independent Regional Publishers, AIRP for entry it into the Unified Database of Retracted Articles.

Publication fee

No fee is charged from the authors during the submission, evaluation, and publication process.

The Editorial Board does not charge the authors for the manuscript submission, reviewing, or publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in own research without the express written consent of the author (authors).

Information or ideas obtained during the reviewing related to benefits should be kept confidential.

Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

Plagiarism

The Editorial Board of the Journal Smart Composites in Construction, when reviewing the manuscript can undergo a multi-step anti-plagiarism check independently verify the received materials using the Anti-Plagiarism system. In case of plagiarism detection, the Editorial Board acts in accordance with COPE rules.

Preprint and Postprint Policy

When submitting an article, the author is required to confirm the manuscript has not been published or accepted for publication in another scientific Journal. When referring to an article published in the Journal Smart Composites in Construction, the publisher asks you to place a link (the full URL of the material) on the official website of the Journal.

Articles previously posted by authors on personal or public sites not affiliated with other publishers are allowed for review

Smart composite in construction

Mission

General information

About

Smart composite in construction

About

Confirmation