PEER REVIEW PROCEDURE AND EDITORIAL ETHICS
Upon receipt of the manuscript to the editorial board of the Scientific and Technical Journal "Automobile Roads and Road Construction" (hereinafter - the Joural) it is reviewed for:
- The presence of problem statement;
- Relevance of chosen topic;
- Completeness of recent research and publications analysis;
- Formulation of the purpose and tasks of the work;
- Description of the main research material and obtained results;
- Conclusions validity and the novelty of the research;
- Conformity of terminology, level of linguistic presentation of the material with the manuscript’s style;
- Conclusions summarizing the work’s results and the prospects for further research in determined direction;
- compliance with the requirements of the Order of registration and submission of publications in the Scientific and Technical Journal "Automobile Roads and Road Construction".
All manuscripts for publications are subject to mandatory review. The review of the manuscript for publication is carried out by one of the members of the Editorial Board of the Collection whose specialty corresponds to the specialty of the submitted manuscript. Members of the Editorial Board choose a manuscript of the publication from the preliminary content of the Collection issue for review. The preliminary content of the publication is formed by the Editor-in-Chief of the Collection who forwards it to the members of the Editorial Board by e-mail. If the certain manuscript for publication had been selected by several reviewers, it has to be sent to each of them. If none of the reviewers selects the certain manuscript for publication, the Executive Editor makes suggestions to the members of the Editorial Board for reviewing the unpublished manuscripts by sending a corresponding letter to the Member of the Editorial Board. A Member of the Editorial Board has the right to refuse reviewing the manuscripts for publication but not more than for two issues following each other. The Member of the Editorial Board informs the Editor-in-Chief of the Collection by sending the corresponding letter to the official e-mail address of the Collection or by any other convenient way about his decision regarding the review of the certain manuscript for publication or about the refusal to review the manuscripts in the issue of the Collection that is currently formed.
Minimum quantity of submitted manuscripts for publication in the Collection, at the beginning of the review procedure, is 7. Maximum quantity of submitted manuscripts for publication in the Collection that are simultaneously under review is 24.
The review of the manuscript for publication is carried out in accordance with the established form of the questionnaire-review for the manuscript for publication. In case of discrepancies, the article may be submitted for review by two or more members of the Editorial board by the decision of the Editorial council. Review of manuscripts is carried out confidentially.
The term of the review is 1 month (from March 1 to April 1 for the first issue of the Collection in the year and from September 1 to October 1 for the second issue of the Collection in the year). If by March 1 (April 1), less than 7 manuscripts for publication have been received for the Collection, then the procedure of the review is not initiated until 7 manuscripts for publication are submitted to the Editorial board. In this case, the review period can be shortened to 14 calendar days.
If the manuscript for publication contains comments and suggestions from the members of the Editorial board or there is a discrepancy with the Policy of the Collection, the Executive review editor informs the authors thereof by sending an e-mail to the e-mail addresses provided by them in the information about the authors. The letter has to specify the elements of the discrepancy, as well as the comments and proposals provided by the Editorial board, additionally the terms for their elimination are indicated. The author (authors) has the right to provide a reasonable answer to the inappropriateness of the article’s finalizing according to the provided comments and proposals. In this case, by decision of the editorial board, the manuscript may be sent for re-review, accepted in the author's edition or the author will be denied publication in the Scientific and Technical Journal "Automobile Roads and Road Construction". Author (authors) will be notified by sending an e-mail to the e-mail addresses provided in the information about the authors.
The reviews of manuscripts for publication from the members of the Editorial board may be submitted to the Editors of the Collection as hard copies (with the personal signature of the reviewer) or in electronic form from the reviewer's e-mail to an official e-mail of the Collection. The submitted reviews in electronic form have to be printed by the responsible secretary of the Collection and added to the manuscript materials.
As disclosing the confidentiality of a manuscript review violates the author's rights, according to the Policy of the Scientific and Technical Journal "Automobile Roads and Road Construction" members of the editorial board do not disclose information about the manuscript (including information about its receipt, content, review process, reviewers' critical remarks, final conclusion), no one but the authors and reviewers. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a statement of unreliability or falsification of materials; in all other cases, the confidentiality is mandatory.
The responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the materials of the article according to the Policy of the Scientific and Technical Journal "Automobile Roads and Road Construction" rests with the author of the article (manuscript of the publication). Responsibility for the reliability of the facts and presented data, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations, as well as scientific and practical level of the articles are on the authors.
The decision to publish manuscripts of article in the Scientific and Technical Journal "Automobile Roads and Road Construction" is made by the Editorial Board of the Journal, based on reviews received by the Journal together with publications and questionnaires-reviews of the manuscript from the Journal editorial board members.
Principles of ethics in the work of the Editorial board and for scientific publications
The editorial board of the Scientific and Technical Journal "Automobile Roads and Road Construction" in its work adheres to the generally accepted principles of ethics, which are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the experience of authoritative international and domestic editions.
Adherence to the principles of ethics of scientific publications by all participants of the publishing process is aimed at ensuring the rights of authors on intellectual property, improving the quality of the publication and preventing the possibility of misuse of copyrighted materials in the interests of individuals.
Principles of ethics in the work of the Editorial board
The Editorial board objectively and impartially reviews all manuscripts submitted for publication, evaluating each article properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, and the position or place of work of the author(s).
The Editorial board of the Collection is not responsible to the authors and / or third parties and organizations for the possible damage caused by the publication of the article and has the right to remove the already published article if it is found out that in the course of publishing the article any rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics had been violated. The Editorial board informs the author(s) of denied article.
The Editorial board may reject the manuscript without peer review if it concludes that the paper does not meet the journal's profile or policy or return it to the author (s) for revision.
The Editorial board of the Collection opposes falsification, plagiarism, simultaneous submission by the author of one paper in several journals, repeated copying of the provisions of the article in different papers, misleading the public about the real contribution of the author(s) to the publication.
Editor-in-Chief and the members of the Editorial board do not provide other persons with information related to the manuscript under review, other than those who participate in the professional evaluation of the manuscript, and maintain the confidentiality of the names and other information concerning the reviewers.
Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used by the Editor-in-chief, members of the Editorial board or editorial staff for personal purposes or transmitted to the third parties (without written consent).
After taking a positive decision, based on scientific reviews and opinion of the members of the Editorial board, the article is published in the Collection and placed in open access in relevant electronic resources; copyright is retained by the authors.
Principles of ethics that should guide the authors of scientific publications
Authors of scientific publications are fully responsible for the content of the articles and for the very fact of their publication.
Authors of scientific publications should provide reliable personal research results. When using fragments of other people's papers and / or borrowing the statements of other authors, the article should be provided with appropriate bibliographic references, with the obligatory indication of the author and the source. Excessive borrowings, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unformed quotations, paraphrases, or assignment of rights to the results of other people's research are unethical and unacceptable.
Deliberately false or falsified statements are equated to unethical behavior and are considered inadmissible, as are articles that are compilations of materials published by other authors without their creative revision and their own authoritative reasoning.
Authors of scientific publications should not submit to the Collection an article that has been submitted to another journal and is currently under review and or published previously in another journal. If the elements of a manuscript were previously published in another article, the authors are required to refer to their earlier work and indicate the difference between the new paper and the previous one. Literal copying of their own papers and their rephrasing are unacceptable; they can only be used as a basis for new conclusions.
In case of significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its review or after its publication, the Editors of the Collection should be immediately notified on it and a joint decision on acknowledgment of the error and / or its correction in the shortest possible time should be made. If the Editors of the Collection become aware that the published paper contains significant errors, the author is obliged to immediately prepare a Notice of the corresponding corrections of errors for publication in the Collection or submit to the Editors the proof of the correctness of the information provided by him.
An author who submits the manuscript for publication is responsible for ensuring that only those persons who meet the criteria of authorship are included in the list of contributors and assumes responsibility for the consent of other authors of the article to publish it in the Collection in relevant electronic open access resources.
Authors of scientific publications should advise the Editor-in-chief of any potential conflict of interests that may be affected by the publication of the results contained in the manuscript.
Authors of scientific publications, in case of return of the article for revision, are obliged to revise it in accordance with the comments of the reviewers or Editorial board, otherwise, the Editorial board reserves the right to reject the article.
Principles of ethics that reviewers should follow
The reviewer should be impartial and not accept the manuscript in the presence of a conflict of interests caused by competition, collaboration or other relations with any authors or organizations associated with the article.
A reviewer who does not consider himself an expert in the area of the subject matter or knows that he will not be able to submit a review of the article in a timely manner, must notify the responsible editor and refuse to review it.
The reviewer should be objective. It is inadmissible to make personal comments in the review to the author. The reviewer must express his / her opinion clearly and reasonably.
If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, authorship or falsification of data, he or she must, without fail, contact a responsible editor for a collective review of the article.
The manuscript received by the reviewer is confidential information that cannot be used for personal purposes. The ideas and provisions of the manuscript are not discussed with unauthorized persons.
