The Editorial Policy of the Collection and Ethical Standards for Publications

The editors of the collection “Strength of Materials and Theory of Structures” ("Opіr materіalіv i teorіya sporud") maintains a certain level of requirements for articles submitted to the editorial board. These requirements are defined by a collection of scientific directions specified in the certificate of state registration, the theme of the collection and the quality standards of scientific papers and their presentation, accepted by the scientific community.

The editors were governed by recommendations of Ethics Committee publications - Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when developing the content of the editorial policy of the collection "Strength of Materials and Theory of Structures". The experience of foreign and Ukrainian professional associations, research organizations and editorial publications also were took into account.

A set of ethical standards is given below. The editors, authors and reviewers should be governed by these standarts.

These limits are designed to provide maximum benefit to the professional community and the right of each author's intellectual property, promote trust among the scientific community and to limit the different actions that could serve as an individual self-serving or self-interest.

Ethical Obligations of the Collection Editors

1. All submitted materials are carefully selected and reviewed. An editorial board reserves the right to reject an article or return it as requiring improvement.
2. The editor should consider all manuscripts offered for publication without prejudice, evaluating each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, citizenship, social status, political position, or institutional affiliation of the author(s). An editor may take into account relationships of a manuscript under consideration to others previously offered by the same author(s).
3. An editor should consider manuscript submitted for publication without delays.
4. The editor and editorial board members should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those who take part in manuscript professional evaluation. After a positive decision has been made about a manuscript, it should be published in the journal and in the website of the journal.
5. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the editor’s journal should be delegated to other qualified person.
6. Any unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor’s own research except with the consent of the author.
7. An editor should promote the publication of information about mistake and its correction under  error materials publication.
8. Editorial Board is not liable to the author and / or third parties and organizations for possible damage caused by the particle publication.

Ethical Obligations of the Authors

1. Whole responsibility for articles content and for the fact of publication rests with author(s). If errors are found in the material submitted to the editors, authors should immediately report it.
2. In submitting a manuscript for publication, an author should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the author has under editorial consideration or in press. Copies of these manuscripts should be submitted at the request of the editor. It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or with drawn from publication.
3. Any unusual hazards appearing during an investigation should be clearly identified in a manuscript reporting the work.
4. A primary research report should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit the author’s peers to repeat the work.  
5. An author should identify the source of all information quoted or offered, except that which is common knowledge. All borrowings and quotations, as well as works that influenced the course of the study, should be decorated with the rules of citation (references, footnotes, etc.).
6. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated.
7. All persons who have made significant scientific contributions into the submitted work and who share responsibility and accountability for the results should be the co-authors of a paper. Other contributions may be marked in the notes or in the "Acknowledgements".
8. The author who submits a manuscript for publication and represents contact information to editors accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all appropriate persons . He also takes responsibility for co-authors agreement at this article publication.
9. The authors should inform the editor about any potential conflict of interest. Authors should quarantee the absence of contract agreement or property speculation which can affect the publication of the information contained in the submitted manuscript. The authors can specify them in the notes or in the "Acknowledgements".

Ethical Obligations of the Reviewers

1. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
2. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.
3. A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
4. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would lead to bias judgment of the manuscript.
5. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
6. A reviewer should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
7. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper and any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
8. A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner.

• Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.

• Reviewers should respond promptly, usually within ten (10) days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, they can contact the editor promptly so that authors can be kept informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers.