The objectives of the publication “Natural and technological risks. Building Safety” are:
Achieving these goals is ensured by a comprehensive solution of the following tasks:
Network publication and print publication “Natural and technological risks. Building Safety” covers issues of management, sustainable development of territories, urban planning, construction activities and integrated urban planning (fire, industrial, seismic, environmental, energy) security.
Publication, statistical accounting and analysis of articles are carried out in accordance with the approved rubricator.
In the publication "Natural and technogenic risks. Safety of Buildings” covers management issues, sustainable spatial development of territories, urban planning, construction activities and integrated urban planning (fire, industrial, seismic, environmental, energy) security.
Publication, statistical accounting and analysis of articles are carried out in accordance with the approved rubricator.
6 issues per year
The publication "Natural and technogenic risks. Safety of Buildings” provides direct open access to its content, based on the following principle: free open access to research results contributes to an increase in global knowledge sharing.
Edition of the publication "Natural and technogenic risks. Safety of Buildings” archives publications on the following resources:
All manuscripts of scientific articles submitted to the Editors undergo mandatory double anonymous (blind) reviewing (the reviewer does not know the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers).
1. Reviewing of articles is carried out by members of the Editorial Board, as well as invited reviewers - leading experts from Russia and other countries in the relevant field of knowledge.
2. The activities of the Editorial Council, including the composition, organization of reviewing articles, the content of reviews, etc., are established in accordance with the regulations.
3. The decision on the choice of one or another reviewer for the examination of the manuscript is made jointly by the Editor-in-Chief, Scientific Editor - the Chairman of the Editorial Board or his deputies. The review period is 3-6 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.
4. The manuscript is sent to at least two reviewers.
5. The reviewer has the right to refuse the review in the event of a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of consideration of the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations on the future fate of the manuscript (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
6. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the manuscript, the Editorial Board sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the manuscript or reasonably (partially or completely) refute them. The revision of the manuscript should not take more than 2 (two) months from the moment of sending an email message to the author about the need to make changes. The manuscript modified by the author is re-sent for review.
7. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they must notify the Editorial Board in writing or orally about their refusal to publish the manuscript. If the authors do not return the revised version of the manuscript after 3 (three) months from the date of sending the review / letter, even if there is no information from the authors with a refusal to revise the manuscript, the Editorial Board removes it from the register. In such a situation, the authors are sent an appropriate notification of the removal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
8. If the author and reviewers have insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board has the right to send the manuscript for additional reviewing. In conflict situations, the decision is made jointly by the Chief Editor and the Scientific Editor.
9. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made by the Editorial Board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. A manuscript not recommended for publication by the decision of the Editorial Board is not accepted for reconsideration. The refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
10. After making a decision on the admission of the manuscript for publication, the Editorial Board informs the author about this and indicates the publication date.
11. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of a manuscript. The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board; in conflict situations, such a decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
12. The originals of the reviews are kept by the Editorial Office for 3 (three) years from the date of publication of the manuscript.
Publications in the publication "Natural and technogenic risks. Safety of Buildings” are included in the systems of calculating citation indices for authors and publications.
“Citation Index” is a numerical indicator characterizing the significance of this article and calculated on the basis of subsequent publications citing this work.
The publication is indexed in systems:
Introduction
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.
2.2. Decency
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.
2.3. Confidentiality
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.
3.2. Diligence
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.
3.3. Confidentiality
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 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.
Publication in the publication "Natural and technogenic risks. Safety of Buildings” is free for authors.
The editors do not charge authors for the preparation, placement and printing of materials.
Unpublished in the publication "Natural and technogenic risks. Safety of Buildings” data 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.
Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case 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.
Edition of the publication “Natural and technological risks. Safety of structures ”, when considering an article, checks the material using the Anti-Plagiarism system. In the event that multiple borrowings are discovered, the editors act in accordance with COPE rules
n the process of submitting the manuscript to the Editorial Office of the publication "Natural and technogenic risks. Safety of Buildings” , the author needs to confirm that the article was not published or was not accepted for publication in another publication. When using published in the publication "Natural and technological risks. Safety of structures”materials; the placement of a link (full URL of the material) to the official website of the publication is mandatory.
Manuscripts previously posted by authors on personal or public sites that are not related to other publishers are allowed for consideration.
The publication "Natural and technogenic risks. Safety of Buildings” is open to all interested parties and organizations.
The editors constantly attract new authors with expert, analytical materials, scientific publications, offering participation in discussions and exchange of opinions, as well as by reviewing the materials published in the publication.
Thanks to the publishing policy, our authors are scientists, university professors, practitioners, experts and graduate students from the Russian Federation, near and far abroad countries.
