Edition of the publication "Natural and technogenic risks. Safety of Buildings” is guided by the requirements of the Law of the Russian Federation“ On Mass Media ”dated December 27, 1991 No. 2124-1 and the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation“ Copyright ”.
In its activities, the Editorial Board adheres to national scientific traditions, as well as international standards, ethical standards and established practices developed by the COPE - Committee for the Ethics of Scientific Publications(http://publicationethics.org), takes into account the most valuable experience of authoritative international publications, including practical recommendations of the Association scientific publishers and editors (ANRI, https://rasep.ru/).
1. General Provisions
1.1. Publication of materials in the publication "Natural and technogenic risks. Safety of Buildings” is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge.
Thus, this document is important to establish standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Editorial Board, Reviewers, Publishing House, Scientific and Professional Community, which includes the Editorial Board, its members, subscribers and readers of the publication.
1.2. The publisher not only maintains scientific communications and invests in this process, but is also responsible for observing all modern recommendations in the published work.
1.3. The publisher commits itself to the strictest supervision of scientific materials.
1.4. Publishing programs in which the Editorial Office participates provide an impartial “report” of the development of scientific thought and research, therefore we also recognize the responsibility for the proper presentation of these “reports”, especially from the point of view of the ethical aspects of the publications presented in this document.
2. Responsibilities of the Editorial Board
2.1. The Editorial Board makes the decision on publication on its own, in collaboration with the relevant Editorial Board and is independently responsible for such a decision. The reliability of the work under consideration and its scientific significance must always underlie the decision to publish.
The editor-in-chief, when managing the Editorial Board, is guided by the policy established by the Editorial Council and complies with the requirements of the current legislation regarding legality, copyright, defamation and plagiarism.
The editor-in-chief may consult with the management of the Editorial Board, the Editors and Reviewers before (or) during the decision to publish.
The editors evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the Authors.
The editors are obliged, without the need, not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, with the exception of the Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher.
2.4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
2.4.1 Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas received during the review and related to potential benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
2.4.2 Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts (namely: to request the Co-Editor, Assistant Editor or to collaborate with other members of the Editorial Board when considering work instead of self-reviewing and making decisions) in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relations with Authors, companies, and possibly other organizations related to the manuscript.
2.5. Publication Supervision
Any member of the Editorial Board who has provided convincing evidence that the allegations or conclusions presented in the publication are erroneous should notify the Editorial Board and / or Publisher in order to inform them as soon as possible of the changes, withdraw the publication, express concern and other statements relevant to the situation.
2.6. Research Engagement and Collaboration
The Editor, together with the Editorial Board and the Publisher, take appropriate retaliatory measures in the event of ethical claims regarding the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures, in general terms, include interaction with the Manuscript Authors and the argumentation of the corresponding complaint or claim, but may also involve interactions with relevant organizations and research centers.
3. Responsibilities of Reviewers
3.1. Impact on the decisions of the Editorial Board
Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is the basis of the scientific approach. Peer review helps the editorial board decide to publish and, through appropriate interaction with the Author, helps to improve the quality of the submitted work.
A reviewer who is aware of the inadequacy of his qualifications to review the manuscript or does not have enough time to prepare a review on time should notify the Editorial Board of this.
Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work should not be opened and discussed with any persons who are not authorized by the Publisher.
3.4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity
The reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the manuscript submitted for review. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
3.5. Source Recognition
Reviewers should identify significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) published earlier in the manuscript must have an appropriate bibliographic reference. The reviewer should also draw the attention of the Editorial Board to discovering significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript in question and any other published work that is within the scope of the Reviewer's scientific competence.
3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas received during the review and related to potential benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.
4. Responsibilities of the Authors
4.1. Manuscript Requirements
4.1.1. Authors of the original research article should provide reliable results of the work done as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles should be accurate and objective, the editorial point of view should be clearly stated.
4.2. Data access and storage
Authors may be requested additional information related to the manuscript for review by the Editorial Board. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to store this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1. Authors must make sure that the original work is submitted and, in the case of the use of works or statements of other Authors, must provide appropriate bibliographic references or excerpts.
4.3.2. Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from representing someone else’s work as copyright to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else’s work (without attribution) and claiming their own rights to the results of another’s research. Plagiarism in all forms constitutes unethical acts and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications.
4.4.1 An author should not publish a manuscript, for the most part devoted to the same study, in more than one publication as an original publication. Presentation of the same manuscript at the same time in more than one publication is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.4.2. The author should not submit a previously published article for consideration in another publication.
4.4.3. The publication of a certain type of publication (for example, translated articles) in more than one publication is in some cases possible under certain conditions. Authors must agree to a secondary publication, which necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the original published work, and coordinate the re-publication of the publication with the editors of the concerned publications.
4.5. Source Recognition
The contribution of others must always be recognized. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the work presented. Data obtained privately, for example, during a conversation, correspondence or in a process of discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the clear written permission of the source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as the evaluation of manuscripts or the provision of grants, should not be used without the express written permission of the Authors of work related to confidential sources.
4.6. Authorship of a publication
4.6.1 Authors of publications can only be individuals who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the design of the work, the development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be identified as Co-Authors.
4.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are presented as Co-Authors and are not listed as Co-authors of those who did not participate in the study; that all Co-authors saw and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.
4.8. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having an impact on the results and / or conclusions presented in the work.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include: employment, counseling, stock ownership, royalties, expert opinions, patent applications or patent registrations, grants, and other financial security. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.
4.9. Significant errors in published works
In the event that significant errors or inaccuracies are found in the published work, the Author must inform the Editorial Office of this and communicate with authorized persons in order to remove the publication as soon as possible or correct errors.
If the Editorial Board or Publisher has received reliable information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the Author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.
5. Responsibilities of the Publisher
5.1. The publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the fulfillment of ethical obligations by the Authors, Editorial Board and Reviewers of the publication in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that the potential profit from advertising did not affect the decisions of the Editorial Board.
5.2. The publishing house should support the Editorial Board in reviewing complaints about the ethical aspects of published materials and help interact with other publishers.
5.3. The publisher should promote good research practice and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, retrieval procedures, and error correction.
6. The procedure for recall (retraction) of an article from publication
Revoking a text from a publication (retraction) is a mechanism for correcting published information and notifying readers that a publication contains serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted.
Retraction is also used to warn readers about cases of duplicate publications (when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, and concealment of conflicts of interest that could affect the interpretation of the data or recommendations for their use.
Revocation of an article (retraction) is carried out at the official request of the author or editor of the online publication.
The grounds for recall (retraction) of the article are:
- the presence of illegal borrowings in a significant amount;
- duplication of articles in several editions;
- detection of fraud or fabrication (for example, manipulation of experimental data);
- identification of serious errors in the work (for example, incorrect interpretation of the results), which casts doubt on its scientific value;
- incorrect composition of authors (there is no one who is worthy to be an author; persons who do not meet the criteria of authorship are included);
- hidden conflict of interest (and other violations of publication ethics);
- republishing an article without the consent of the author;
- other violations of the ethical principles of the online publication.
- The decision to recall the article is taken by the Editorial Board on the proposal of the Editor-in-Chief of the publication, containing information on the existence of a reason for recall. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Editorial Board of the publication with a justification of the reasons for the retraction (in case of plagiarism - with an indication of the sources of borrowing) and the date of retraction is sent to the author (lead author in case of co-authorship). The authors may not agree with the position of the editors, but this does not invalidate the editors' right to conduct the procedure.
The decision on retraction at the editorial initiative is taken taking into account the response of the author of the article, justifying its position on the issue of recalling the article. If the author ignores the editorial request, the editorial board has the right to ask for help from the Council for Ethics of Scientific Publications of ANRI and / or to withdraw the publication without taking into account the opinion of the author.
If the author / co-authors find it necessary to withdraw the article, they contact the editorial office, reasonably explaining the reason for their decision. Further, the editorial staff retrogs the text.
The article and the description of the article remain on the website of the publication as part of the corresponding issue of the publication, with the inscription: "RETRACTED", date of retraction, the same note is placed in the table of contents of the issue.
Information on the recalled articles is sent to the Council for Ethics of Scientific Publications of the ARRI and the database of scientific information (NEB, CyberLeninka) for inclusion in the unified database of recalled (retracted) articles. Recalled articles and references to them are excluded from the RSCI and do not participate in the calculation of indicators.