Ethics and malpratice statement

Taking into account the fact that the topics covered by “Urbanism Architecture Constructions” are part of the planning area, where political options can influence scientific approaches and generate different attitudes, the journal will adopt a neutral position in eventual controversies, without publishing preferentially one of the sides through the publication of articles. A similar position will be adopted in relationship to other issues, such as the environment, gender, ethics, or public policies; in all these cases, the primary focus will be the scientific contribution of an article to its field.

The ethical principles of the publication process for the entire journal in general and for scientific articles in special are based on the international norms and guidelines, especially those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) - https://publicationethics.org/, World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) - https://www.wame.org/, and World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki - https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ on the good practices of peer review-based journals.

The peer review process

No article will be published without peer review, consisting of an assessment of its scientific quality by the editors and external reviewers, and checked by the editorial team with respects to its compliance with the editing guidelines. The editors will check whether the article can undergo the peer review process or not. The external reviewers will recommend whether the article can be published as submitted or conditioned by changes, and reject articles not meeting the quality standards. Articles found acceptable by the reviewers can be rejected if authors refuse systematically to observe the editing rules specified in the Author Guidelines. Conference reports and book reviews are not subject to peer review. Additional details on the process are available in the “Peer review” section.

The journal has for levels of decision. The first one is represented by the editorial assistants, who assess the articles with respect to observing the Author Guidelines and language level. The next one is represented by the board of external Reviewers, who assess the articles with respect to their scientific soundness and recommend their acceptance or rejection. The third one belongs to the Editorial Board, which can recommend a decision if two reviewers have different opinions in relationship with the same article. In addition, they can recommend editorial policies, and are responsible for promoting the journal in the academic and research environment; in this regard, they can recommend the association of the journal with different conferences or other scientific events. The highest decisional level is represented by the Chief Editor, Associate Editor and Editors. Their responsibility ranges, in this order, from decision making to its implementation, in relationship to the editorial policies and content of the journal. They decide whether an article can be admitted to peer review, are directly responsible, in the opposite order, for overruling the decisions of the reviewers, if the article is not suitable for the journal, and for mediating potential conflicts between authors and reviewers. The decision of rejecting articles that are not suitable for the journal is taken prior to sending it to the reviewers, but can also be taken after the review in case of major incompliance with the editorial policies and guidelines. All the people from the higher level can perform reviews if there are no external reviewers covering the specific area tackled by the article.

Responsibilities of each stakeholder

Authors. The submission of a paper implies that the paper has not been published or submitted and is not considered for publication by any other journal, that the study described by the paper is original, and the presentation of other materials does not violate author’s rights or copyright. In addition, the contents of the paper is known and approved by all authors, who contributed to writing the paper and/or carrying out the research described in the paper. The quality of authoring a paper should be limited to those contributing effectively to writing out the paper or carrying out the research presented in their paper. The authors assume the full responsibility for the contents, correctness and originality of the submissions, as well as the observance of ethical standards by filling in a pledge form required by the journal once the article is accepted. Authors must also provide the data used in the article if requested. If authors detect significant errors in their work after publication, they are required to notify the Chief Editor and arrange the submission of a corrected version of their work.

Reviewers. Reviewers are required to inform the Chief Editor if they cannot assess an article, if it falls beyond their competence, is similar to an article published elsewhere, or determines a conflict of interests. Otherwise, they should complete the review process in due time by submitting a complete Review Form. No other means of communication can replace the Review Form. In the absence of this document, the submission is reassigned to a different reviewer.

Editors and Editorial Assistants (including Editorial Assistants, Associate Editor, Chief Editor, and Editors) must secure a correct and unbiased, but also competent review by making sure of the double blindness of the review process, assigning submission to reviewers based on matching the research areas, and providing solutions to potential conflicts during the reviewers and authors while keeping each other’s identity undisclosed to its counterpart. The main responsibility is to ensure an unbiased evaluation with respect to the ethnic or geographic origin, gender, sexual orientation, and ethical or political beliefs. In the peer review process, they may overrule the decisions of the reviewers, if the article is not suitable for the journal, and can mediate potential conflicts between authors and reviewers. Also, they may be asked to act as reviewers if suitable reviewers are not identified in due time.

Members of the Editorial Board can recommend editorial policies, and are responsible for promoting the journal in the academic and research environment; in this regard, they can recommend the association of the journal with different conferences or other scientific events. In the peer review process, they may be required to make a decision if two reviewers have different opinions in relationship with the same article, and even act as reviewers if suitable reviewers are not identified in due time.

The editing and publishing institution is responsible for hosting the journal on its server, providing free and open access to it, and promoting the journal through its own website and other means. The publisher may not interfere with the peer review process and operation of the journal. The publisher is entitled to sign any agreements and paper work related to the journal, wherever this provision exists.

Other ethical issues

Conflicts of interests. Conflict of interest may appear when those involved in the peer review process (editors, editorial assistants, and reviewers) have a financial relationship or personal, academic and intellectual issues that may inappropriately influence the peer review process. This may include certain personal academic convictions, personal relationships (friends, enemies, or family), political or religious beliefs, or institutional affiliations. Such conflicts must de declared and disclosed immediately by the editors, editorial assistants, and reviewers, as appropriate. Authors must also mention, whenever applicable, possible conflicts of interests, with potential impact over the review process, and present all grant information if the article resulted from funded research. Conflict of interest may also appear when articles are submitted by editors, editorial assistants, and reviewers; authors from same institution as one of the editors; or by relatives of the editors, editorial assistants, and reviewers. In both cases, different another member of the editorial or reviewer border is appointed to deal with the submissions, such that the peer review process is not influenced by the potential conflict of interest.

Author’s right and copyright. No articles that violate author’s rights and copyright, fully or partially, through plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) or inclusion of elements (such as images) that do not belong to them and for which they did not receive the owner's consent to use will be published. Plagiarism is defined as reproducing ideas or entire contents from someone else without crediting the source using the citation system specified by the Author Guidelines. During the review stage, plagiarism must be reported by the Reviewers using the Review Form, providing sufficient evidence (including results of specialized software). In the next stage, the editorial team checks each article for plagiarism using a specialized program. If plagiarism is detected after publication, articles will be withdrawn from the journal.

Post-publication issues Everyone can contact the journal submitting inquiries after the publication of an article. If corrections are needed, the journal will contact the authors and will ask them for the corrections. A corrected version will be uploaded, mentioning the fact that the new version represents a correction of an already published article. If the required corrections are substantial or the authors do not respond in due time, the article will be retracted temporarily, until a corrected version is received, or permanently, if the authors fail to respond or submit required corrections. If the authors do not consider the required corrections suitable and provide a justification, the journal will contact the initial reviewers of the article, and, if they do not respond, other reviewers with a similar experience, members of the Editorial Board, or Editors, and a decision will be made, following the mechanism of conflict resolution.

Resolution of ethics-related inquiries and conflicts

The procedure used to solve any ethical issues includes the following steps: identification, investigation, and resolution.

Identification. Inquiries can be brought to the attention of the Chief Editor by anyone and at any time for the articles already published, or can be noticed during the peer review process. In order to be accounted for, inquiries must include sufficient information, arguments and proofs. Regardless of their manner, inquiries will be treated in an unbiased and timely manner, until a satisfactory solution is identified.

Investigation. The Chief Editor will treat each issue with a maximum confidentiality, contacting the competent or responsible people. During the process, other parts can also be contacted (authors, those who sent the inquiry, reviewers etc.) The stage will end with identifying the issue, which can be minor – in this case, no other parts are contacted, and the authors will be able to respond, or major, involving additional people or institutions, such as the hiring institution of the authors, experts or other people.

Resolution. The final output of this stage can consist of notifying the authors, warning them, publishing a note on behalf of the Chief Editor, retraction of articles (e.g., if the authors refuse to submit the Pledge Form), instituting a period of embargo or a total banning (e.g., for authors who refuse to revise their article or comply with the Author Guidelines), and submission of the case to national or international institutions enabled to act further.