Aim and Scope

Section Policies

Architecture and urban planning. Reconstruction and refurbishment

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Construction system design and layout planning. Construction mechanics. Bases and foundations, underground structures

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Construction material engineering

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Safety of Construction and Urban Economy

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Hydraulics. Geotechnique. Hydrotechnical construction

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Engineering systems in construction

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Technology and organization of construction. Economics and management in construction

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Short Messages. Discussions and Reviews. Information

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Peer review is the procedure for reviewing scientific articles by scientists who are specialists in the subject area of the article.

The purpose of the review is to obtain an expert’s opinion on the reliability and accuracy of the information presented, the scientific level, relevance and novelty of the research conducted by the authors of the article.

Reviewing is carried out confidentially, the author is not informed of the name of the reviewer (one-way blind review). The editors of the journal ensure control over compliance with this condition. The reviewer carries out work to evaluate the manuscript on a voluntary and non-commercial basis.

Reviewing of an article is carried out only if the article strictly complies with the requirements for manuscripts submitted for consideration.

A reviewer is a specialist in the subject area of the article manuscript, whose tasks include an independent assessment and preparation of an expert opinion. The reviewer is selected by the Editorial Board from among specialists competent in the subject area of the article.

When selecting a reviewer, the editors rely on modern information systems that systematize the researcher’s scientific activities. The selection of an independent reviewer is carried out using modern information services that systematize the scientific activities of researchers: International citation and analytical databases WoS/Scopus, Publons service, ResearcherGate or others.
The editors, based on the works presented in the profile of Publons, ORCID or others, prepare proposals for the editorial board to invite scientists as reviewers. The editors receive contact information from open sources (website of the organization where the reviewer works, ORCID profile or contact information indicated in publications).”

Before submitting the article for review, the editors contact the potential reviewer and agree on the possibility of evaluating it.

If you agree to prepare a review of the article, the reviewer:

1. is obliged to disclose a possible conflict of interest that may cast doubt on the reliability of his assessment of the manuscript and the overall conclusions of the presented study;
2. is obliged to consider the manuscript received for evaluation as a confidential document that is prohibited from being passed on for review or discussion to third parties without the special permission of the Editorial Board of the Journal;
3. confirms that he has sufficient experience, knowledge in the subject area and time to prepare the review;
4. is obliged to provide an objective and reasoned assessment of the results of the research under review and express his own opinion without personal criticism of the author.

By submitting the manuscript to the reviewer for evaluation, the editors confirm that the conflicts of interest declared by the reviewer as possible are not significant and do not affect the evaluation of the author’s work. A reviewer cannot be a specialist who carries out competitive, joint or other interactions with the author or organizations associated with the research presented in the manuscript.

The reviewer carries out work to evaluate the manuscript on a voluntary and non-commercial basis. He may refuse to review the article for any reasons, including ethical ones.

With the consent of the reviewer, the editors send the article and other materials sent by the author and related to the content of the article (figures, tables, multimedia data and other available materials on the article) to the reviewer for evaluation.

When preparing a review, the reviewer is guided by the journal's editorial policy, the rights and responsibilities of the reviewer, and the code of ethics for scientific publications. The editors encourage reviewers participating in the evaluation of articles proposed for publication in our journal to adhere to the principles proclaimed in the Ethical Principles for Reviewers developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The review of the article evaluates:

• the relevance of the problem and the validity of the need for research;
• correct description of the hypothesis, research questions and terminology;
• reliability and impartiality of methods, techniques and procedures for data collection and methods for their analysis;
• clarity and specificity of research results;
• clarity of conclusions, consistency of conclusions, research results and research objectives
  article writing style

In conclusion, the reviewer makes a recommendation regarding the possibility of publication:

• Recommend without modification;
• Recommend with revision;
• Recommend with revision and re-review;
• Reject.

Review preparation time is up to 4 weeks.

If there are comments from the reviewer, the author is asked to make appropriate adjustments to the manuscript, give a response to the reviewer indicating, if necessary, the impossibility of making corrections, or submit a reasoned rejection of the comments (in whole or in part).

An article revised (revised) by the author, if necessary, can be re-sent for review and is considered in the general manner.

An article not recommended for publication by the reviewer will not be accepted for re-review.

The presence of a large number of critical comments from the reviewer with an overall positive recommendation for the article for publication allows the article to be classified as debatable, and it can be published as a scientific discussion.

A positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. The final decision on the advisability of publishing an article is made by the editors of the journal.

The original review remains in the editorial archive for five years and, if necessary, is sent to the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

Retraction and corrections of publications

In some cases, the editorial board of the journal may decide to withdraw an article (retraction) or make corrections to already published material.

A reader or other person, if there is a suspicion of violation by the Author (team of authors) of the norms of publication ethics, as well as in the case of:

• detection of plagiarism in an article, including detection of borrowings of figures, graphs, tables, etc., if the fact of plagiarism became obvious after the publication of the article;
• occurrence of claims regarding copyright of the article or its individual parts from third parties;
• detection of the fact of publication of an article in another publication before the date of its publication in the journal;
• the presence of serious errors in the published article that cast doubt on its scientific value,

contacts the editor (journals@mgsu.ru) with a description of the identified violations.

The author (team of authors), if errors or inaccuracies are identified in the published material, sends an appropriate message to the editorial office of the journal.

The editors of the journal, together with the Editorial Board, initiate a review of the application.

Based on the results of the inspection, a conclusion is prepared on the compliance with reality of the provisions specified in the application.

Based on the results of the review, the article may be withdrawn from publication, and the necessary adjustments may be made to the article.

In case of retraction of an article, an act of revocation of the article from publication is drawn up, which is signed by the editor-in-chief. A copy of the act is sent to the author of the article.

In case of retraction of an article, the editors also forward the specified information to the Ethics Council for Scientific Publications of ANRI.

In this case, the article is not physically removed from the published circulation and the issue file on the website. The editors publish a statement about the retraction of the article and place it on the corresponding issue contents page on the official website of the journal.

The editors of the journal carefully and responsibly consider all justified requests regarding detected violations in published materials.

The editors consider it the responsibility of the author and reviewer to inform the editors as quickly as possible about errors and violations identified by them after the publication of the article.

Open Access Policy

This 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

Information published in the journal is transferred for full-text placement on the basis of concluded agreements for storage and ensuring permanent access:

• Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI);
• Open access scientific library "CyberLeninka";

The journal is indexed in the following academic databases and information systems:

• Google Scholar
• Research Bib

For Reviewer

Этические аспекты рецензирования

Рецензирование — процедура рассмотрения научных статей учеными-специалистами в предметной области статьи. 

Целью рецензирования является – получение мнения эксперта о достоверности и точности изложения информации, научном уровне, актуальности и новизне проведенного авторами статьи исследования.

Рецензирование осуществляется конфиденциально, автору не сообщается имя рецензента (одностороннее слепое рецензирование). Редакция журнала обеспечивает контроль за соблюдением данного условия. Рецензент осуществляет работу по оценке рукописи на добровольной и некоммерческой основе.

Рецензирование статьи осуществляется только при строгом соответствии статьи требованиям, предъявляемым к представляемым к рассмотрению рукописям.

Рецензент – специалист в предметной области рукописи статьи, в задачи которого входит независимая оценка и подготовка экспертного мнения. Рецензент подбирается Редакцией из числа компетентных в предметной области статьи специалистов.

Редакция до передачи статьи на рецензирование связывается с потенциальным рецензентом и согласовывает возможность ее оценки.

При согласии подготовить рецензию на статью рецензент:

1. обязан сообщить о возможном конфликте интересов, позволяющем подвергнуть сомнению достоверность его оценки рукописи и общие выводы по представленному исследованию;
2. обязан рассматривать рукопись, полученную для оценки, конфиденциальным документом, который запрещено передавать для ознакомления или обсуждения третьим лицам без специального разрешения редакции Журнала;
3. подтверждает, что он обладает достаточным опытом, знаниями в предметной области и временем для подготовки рецензии;
4. обязан предоставлять объективную и аргументированную оценку результатам рассматриваемого исследования и выражать собственное мнение без персональной критика автора.

Передавая рецензенту на оценку рукопись, редакция подтверждает, что заявленные рецензентом в качестве возможных конфликты интересов не являются существенными и не влияют на оценку работы автора. Рецензентом не может выступать специалист, осуществляющий конкурентные, совместные или иные взаимодействия в отношении автора либо организаций, связанных с представленным в рукописи исследованием.

Рецензент осуществляет работу по оценке рукописи на добровольной и некоммерческой основе. Он может отказаться от рецензирования статьи по любым основаниям, в том числе этическим.

При согласии рецензента редакция направляет рецензенту статью и другие материалы, присланные автором и имеющие отношение к содержанию статьи (рисунки, таблицы, мультимедийные данные и другие имеющиеся материалы по статье), для оценки.

Формы документов и рекомендации

Рецензент при работе над подготовкой рецензии руководствуется редакционной политикой журнала, правами и обязанностями рецензента, кодексом этики научных публикаций. Редакция призывает рецензентов, участвующих в оценке предлагаемых к публикации в нашем журнале статей, придерживаться принципов, провозглашенных в Этических принципах для рецензентов, разработанных Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

В рецензии на статью оценивается:

• актуальность проблемы и обоснованность необходимости исследования;
• корректность описания гипотезы, исследовательских вопросов и терминологии;
• достоверность и беспристрастность методов, методик и процедура сбора данных и методик их анализа;
• ясность и конкретность результатов исследования;
• четкость выводов, соответствие выводов, результатов исследования и целей исследования
• стиль написания статьи

В заключении Рецензент дает рекомендацию о возможности публикации:

• Рекомендовать без доработки;
• Рекомендовать с доработкой;
• Рекомендовать с доработкой и повторным рецензированием;
• Отклонить.

Сроки подготовки рецензии – до 4 недель.

Рекомендуемая форма рецензии

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal «Vestnik MGSU» 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: «Vestnik MGSU».

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 «Vestnik MGSU»  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 «Vestnik MGSU» 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 «Vestnik MGSU» 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 «Vestnik MGSU» 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 «Vestnik MGSU» 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 «Vestnik MGSU» 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 «Vestnik MGSU» 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.

Author fees

Publishing in the journal is free for authors. The editors do not charge authors for the preparation, placement and printing of materials.

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

"Vestnik MGSU" 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 "Vestnik MGSU", 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 "Vestnik MGSU" 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.