Aim and Scope

The main goal of the journal is to create accessible information and communication space for discussing new knowledge and approaches, understanding long-existing and analyzing and explaining only recently identified phenomena, introducing scientific and technical achievements into practice. The journal is aimed at combining the efforts of domestic and foreign scientists, as well as practitioners conducting research in the field of construction, architecture and the transport industry. Both original scientific and review articles on a wide range of theoretical and practical issues are accepted for publication.

The objectives of the journal are: to provide scientists with the opportunity to publish the results of their research for free; drawing attention to current and promising scientific research results; attracting young researchers to write high-quality scientific publications corresponding to the topics of the journal; highlighting best practices and real achievements in headline knowledge areas; providing readers with high-quality content due to careful selection of articles taking into account interest and relevance of the topic, originality and novelty of the proposed ideas, reliability of the presented materials.

Section Policies

ARCHITECTURE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CONSTRUCTION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

TRANSPORT

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

VECTOR OF SCIENCE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 times per year

Open Access Policy

Open access.

The publication is guided by the Budapest Open Access Initiative, according to which open access is understood as free access to scientific literature via the Internet and allows any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or refer to the full texts of works in the absence of any financial, legal and technical restrictions. The only possible restriction on the distribution and reproduction of works is the author's right to control the integrity of the text, as well as the obligatory indication of authorship when using and quoting.

Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic Library (NEL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
• Scientific Electronic Library (eLibrary.ru)
• CyberLeninka

Peer-Review

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal "Architecture, Construction, Transport" undergo a mandatory peer review for the purpose of their expert assessment. The time taken to process manuscripts from admission to printing is 16 weeks on average. If the nearest issue is already completed, the article, in agreement with the author, can be transferred to the next issue.

1. Initial assessment of the manuscript for compliance with the requirements of the journal

The manuscript received by the editorial office is evaluated for compliance with the scientific subject of the journal and the rules for the design of the manuscript presented in the section "Rules for authors." Evaluation time can take up to 2 weeks, in case of delay, the editors notify the author. The examination of the English-language article is carried out within up to 3 weeks.

Manuscripts not issued according to the rules are rejected. Re-submission of the manuscript is possible after bringing it in line with the requirements of the journal.

All incoming manuscripts are screened for antiplagiarism in Antiplagiat system (the percentage of originality must be at least 75%). In case of detection of numerous incorrect borrowings, the editors act in accordance with the COPE rules.

Manuscripts corresponding to the subject of the journal, designed in accordance with the rules for authors and not containing incorrect borrowings, are accepted for consideration.

2. Reviewing

Accepted manuscripts undergo double-blind review (the reviewer receives a manuscript without personal data of the authors, author (s) is not informed who reviewed the manuscript). If controversial issues arise or the author disagrees with the opinion of the reviewer, the manuscript, in agreement with the editorial board, can be sent for repeated (additional) review.

The review period is 2-4 weeks, but can be extended at the request of the reviewer. Review of articles is carried out by invited reviewers - leading specialists in the relevant branch of knowledge of Russia and other countries, as well as members of the editorial board. The reviewer should have publications for the last 3 years on the subject of the peer-reviewed article. When choosing a reviewer, the editors take into account potential conflicts of interest. For example, a supervisor, co-author of previous articles, employer/subordinate, relative of the author of the article cannot be reviewers of the manuscript received by the editorial office. If authors of the articles are the editor-in-chief or members of the editorial board of the journal, the manuscript is given for review only to external reviewers.

Articles are reviewed on a voluntary basis. Each reviewer has the right to refuse if there is a possible or obvious conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.

Full texts of reviews along with published articles are uploaded to the Scientific Electronic Library eLIBRARY.ru.

Reviewers, according to the adopted editorial policy of the journal "Architecture, Construction, Transport" at reviewing must comply with ethical standards based on the international provisions of The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP).

At the examination of the manuscript, reviewer:

• evaluates the originality and significance of the study, methodology of the study, the accuracy of the results presentation, validity and consistency of the conclusions. In addition, it evaluates the overall quality of the manuscript (style of presentation, compliance of terminology with the topic within which the manuscript is written) for possible inaccuracies and errors;
• provides the editor with recommendations concerning the appropriateness of publishing the manuscript in the journal;
• informs the editor of potential conflicts of interest that may arise regarding authors or manuscript content. In this case, the reviewer may refuse to review;
• guarantees the confidentiality of the information contained in the manuscript.

Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations on the further fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):

• the article is recommended for publication in its present form;
• the article is recommended for publication after correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;;
• the article needs additional peer review by another specialist;
• an article cannot be published in the journal.

3. Improvement of the manuscript and final decision to publish

If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board of the journal sends author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them reasonably (partially or completely). The term for finalizing the article is no more than a month from the date of sending an email to the authors about the need to make changes. The article finalized by the author is re-sent for review.

If authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editors in written form about their refusal to publish the article. If authors do not return the revised version in 4 weeks from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors about thrie refusal to revise the article, the editors will remove it from the register. The authors are sent a corresponding notification about the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the period allotted for revision.

If the author and the reviewer have unresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board and the editor-in-chief are entitled to send the manuscript for additional review. The term for additional review is 2-4 weeks. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editorial board.

A positive review is not sufficient for publishing an article. The final decision to publish is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the editor-in-chief makes the decision.

The decision to refuse to publish the manuscript is made by the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewer. An article not recommended by the decision of the editorial board for publication is not accepted for reconsideration. A refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.

In case of decision to allow the article to be published, the editorial board informs the author and specifies the publication dates.

The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years and can be transferred to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon request.

Publishing Ethics

The scientific journal "Architecture, Construction, Transport" complies with the ethical standards adopted by the scientific community, in particular, with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics, Ethics Committee of the Alliance of Independent Region Publishers, 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: "Architecture, Construction, Transport".

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 programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize 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 "Architecture, Construction, Transport" 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 "Architecture, Construction, Transport" 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 "Architecture, Construction, Transport" 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 "Architecture, Construction, Transport" and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality 

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The reviewers must keep the contents of the manuscript confidential until the paper is published. 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, 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. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.7.1. 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.

4.7.2. 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.

4.8. 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 "Architecture, Construction, Transport" 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 "Architecture, Construction, Transport" 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 "Architecture, Construction, Transport" 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 specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

Founder

625000, Russian Federation, Tyumen, 38 Volodarskogo St.
Industrial University of Tyumen
Phone: (3452) 28-35-91
e-mail: general@tyuiu.ru, tsrpa@tyuiu.ru

625000, Russian Federation, Tyumen, 11 Nekrasova St.
General Administration of Construction of the Tyumen region
Phone: (3452) 49-02-00
e-mail: gus@72to.ru

Author fees

Publication in "Architecture, Construction, Transport" 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

All participants in the process of reviewing and preparing the manuscript for publication should take into account and disclose information about the presence of clear or possible conflict of interest. Potential sources of conflict of interest can be competition in the academic environment and intellectual beliefs, personal relationships, financial relationships (employment, fees, patents, paid expert assessments, etc.).

Authors are required to indicate in the submitted manuscript all financial and personal relationships that could have influenced the study:

• the presence or absence of conflict of interest,
• sources of funding for the work (grants, sponsorship, etc.), if any, and their role in the study (development of the study plan, collection and analysis of data, submission of information for publication) or statement that the source of funding did not participate in the study itself.

Reviewers should alert the editor to the presence of clear or possible conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, and other interactions and relationships with the author (s) and refuse to review.

Journal editors should refuse to take editorial decisions when there is conflict of interest related to the manuscripts in question.

Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review cannot be used in personal research without written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Plagiarism detection

"Architecture, Construction, Transport" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

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.

AI use Policy

Due to the growing use of artificial intelligence software in the preparation and writing of scientific articles, the editorial board of the journal "Architecture, Construction, Transport" considers it necessary to focus the attention of all participants in the preparation of the publication on the following provisions.

For authors:

1. AI-based programs and tools, chatbots (for example, ChatGPT, etc.) under no circumstances can be indicated as an author, since they do not meet the requirements of authorship: they are not responsible for the submitted manuscript, cannot declare the presence or absence of conflict of interest, as well as manage copyright.
2. Use of chatbots or other programs based on artificial intelligence is prohibited at writing text and metadata of the article. Authors should take into account that AI tools often provide false and unverified information, since the algorithm is not able to critically assess the quality and authenticity of the result. Only the author is responsible for the reliability of the data used and for the final text of the article!
3. The use of AI tools to generate tables, figures, and datasets is prohibited. The exception is articles in which AI is the object (subject) of the research.
4. If AI-based program was used to edit and translate text, search for additional sources of literature, collection and analysis of data, it is necessary to register this in the article (section "Materials and Methods" and/or "Thanks") indicating the version of the program and the date of use. The author must carefully verify the information provided.
5. To check manuscripts received by the editorial office of the journal "Architecture, Construction, Transport" there is used "Antiplagiat" system which allows to detect the generated text.
6. No confidential materials can be transferred to the chatbot with generative AI when the editor and reviewer work with the article.
7. Articles that do not explain the necessity of using AI, do not contain references to the use of generative AI tools, and contain fragments of text generated by artificial intelligence will be rejected.

For reviewers:

1. It is prohibited to use AI-based programs and tools to prepare a review. Uploading confidential information contained in manuscripts to AI programs is copyright infringement.
2. If reviewer has suspicions of using AI tools by the authors (without indicating this fact in the article), he must report this to the editorial board.

The journal "Architecture, Construction, Transport" shares the position of the international publishing community regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of scientific articles, set out in the following documents: Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts (WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications), Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making.

Retraction and Correction Policy

Changes in the article accepted for publication, which went through the stages of peer review and prepress (publication online first is included), fall into one of three categories.

Addendum. Adding new material to the accepted article that supplements its original content (addendum) requires mandatory reviewing. Additional material is uploaded on the journal's website as a new manuscript with a link to the original article. If the new material should replace the original content of the accepted article, the editor may consider the publication of an erratum or a corrigendum.

Publisher Corrections (erratum) is published in case of an error (typo, missed change) introduced by the journal in production, which is significant and affects the understanding of the article by the reader. Corrections are not published for simple, obvious typographical errors.

Author Corrections (Corrigendum). If the authors consider it necessary to make corrections after the publication of the article (corrigendum), it is necessary to send a written (by email) request with justification to the editorial office of the journal. The final decision on the publication of the correction (corrigendum) is made by the editors of the journal and members of the Editorial Board after assessing the impact of the change on the scientific accuracy and significance of the published article. In some cases, the identification of serious errors and inconsistencies in the published article may require retraction of the article.

Retraction policy

According to the recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Council. COPE Retraction guidelines — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 ), the withdrawal of the text from the publication (retraction) is possible to correct the published information and notify readers that the publication contains serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. Data inaccuracy may result from misconception or deliberate breach.

Retraction is also used to warn readers about cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, peer review manipulation, reuse of material or data without authorization, copyright infringement or some other legal issue (eg, libel, privacy, illegality), unethical research, and/or a failure to disclose a major competing interest that would have unduly influenced interpretations or recommendations.

According to COPE Retraction Guidelines, editors of the National Health Care (Russia) consider retracting a publication if:

• Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
• Detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication;
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
• It contains material or data without authorization for use
• copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
• It reports unethical research
• It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
• The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (aka, conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

If the author/group of authors find it necessary to withdraw the article, they contact the editorial office, explaining the reason for their decision. If the editorial board agrees to retraction, then it independently retracts the text.

If the editorial board decides to withdraw the text based on its expertise or information received by the editorial board, the author/group of authors is informed of this decision, with a justification for retraction of the article. If the author/team ignores the editorial request, it is appropriate to seek assistance from the Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications.

Having decided to withdraw the article, the editors indicate the reason for the retraction (if plagiarism is found, indicating the sources of borrowing), as well as the date of retraction. The article and the description of the article remain on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue of the journal, but the inscription WITHDRAWAL / RETRACTED and the retraction date are applied to the electronic version of the text, the same mark is placed with the article in the table of contents of the issue.

The retraction results must be presented in both printed and electronic versions of the journal.

The editors must report the fact of retraction to all the databases in which the journal is indexed.

The Council for the Ethics of Scientific Publications and the Scientific Information Base (NEB, CyberLeninka) is provided with a protocol, which indicates the date of the meeting, the composition of the meeting, the results of the examination, a reasoned decision, and a completed form.