- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
Aim and Scope
- development of domestic construction science;
- publication of materials and results of fundamental research and achievements of scientists, specialists in the field of reliability and safety of buildings and structures;
- publication of the results of the introduction of new materials and technologies;
- informing about the latest theoretical developments and effective practical experience in the design, construction, operation of buildings and structures
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
4 issues per year
Open Access Policy
"Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
1. General Provisions
1.1. Publication of scientific articles in the scientific and technical journal "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" requires mandatory double-blind review of manuscripts submitted by the authors.
1.2. These Regulations determine the procedure and procedure for reviewing original articles submitted to the editorial office, review periods, and requirements for the composition of reviewers.
2. Review procedure
2.1. Manuscripts of articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal, drawn up in strict accordance with the conditions and procedure for accepting manuscripts, are allowed for review.
2.2. After determining whether an article meets the journal profile, it is sent to the reviewer on behalf of the editorial team/editor-in-chief without indicating the name of the author(s). The reviewer is notified that the materials sent to him are the private property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure. The reviewer is not allowed to make copies or transfer the received materials to third parties.
2.3. After receiving the manuscript of the article, the reviewer reviews it.
The review is compiled in free form, contains a detailed analytical review and includes a reasoned assessment of the scientific (theoretical, methodological and conceptual) level of the article, the degree of novelty and practical significance of the results obtained by the author, the degree of their contribution to the development of scientific ideas in the relevant field of knowledge, a general list and analysis of all noted shortcomings, as well as a statement of the absence of borrowings and a general conclusion about the advisability of publishing the article or its rejection and revision. The review is signed with the original signature of the reviewer.
2.4. In case of a positive conclusion from the reviewer, the manuscript of the article is returned to the editor for publication in one of the issues of the journal.
2.5. If the review contains significant comments and concludes that the article needs to be revised, the manuscript of the article is returned to the author to eliminate the comments. The revised version of the article may be sent for re-review.
In case of a repeated negative review result, the manuscript of the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
2.6. In case of a negative assessment of the manuscript of the article, the editorial board of the journal sends a reasoned refusal to the author(s) with attached reviews without indicating the names of the reviewer(s).
2.7. Reviewing is confidential:
a) the manuscript is sent to the reviewer without indicating the author of the article;
b) the review is sent to the author without specifying the reviewer.
c) any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work must not be opened or discussed with any person not authorized to do so by the editor.
2.8. Reviews and recommendations for each article are stored in the editorial office of the journal for five years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the work being reviewed is published. Upon receipt of a corresponding request, the editors have the right to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
3. Review deadlines
3.1. The manuscript of the article is sent for review after it is received by the editorial office of the journal.
3.2. The review period is no more than ten working days from the date the manuscript of the article is received by the reviewer. If additional time is needed for reviewing, at the request of the reviewer, this period may be increased, but not more than by five working days.
3.3. If the reviewer fails to submit a review of the submitted article to the editorial board of the journal within the time period established by these Regulations, the article is sent to another reviewer at the discretion of the editors.
4. Composition of reviewers
The reviewers are members of the editorial board of the journal, as well as other persons - doctors or candidates of sciences, whose scientific specialization corresponds to the subject of the manuscript.
5. Responsibilities of reviewers
5.1. Peer review helps the editor make decisions about publication and, through appropriate interaction with authors, can also help the author improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, located at the very “heart” of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scientists who wish to contribute to a publication are required to undertake the substantive work of reviewing the manuscript.
5.2. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or does not have sufficient time to complete the work quickly should notify the editor of Concrete and Reinforced Concrete and request to be removed from the review process for the relevant manuscript.
5.3. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and with reason.
5.4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that is relevant to the topic and manuscripts not included in the reference list. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) previously published must have an appropriate bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also bring to the editor's attention any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work within the reviewer's area of expertise.
6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
6.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative or other interactions or relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction"
1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1.Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" journal 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.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
Founder
- JSC Science and Research Center of Construction
Author fees
Publication in "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
"Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in "Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Sovremennaya revmatologiya" (the “Modern Rheumatology Journal”) we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints, article processment charges.
