Peer review principles

The editorial board of Construction of Unique Buildings and Structures kindly asks you to use the following principles of peer review:

• reviewing is based on mutual respect of the author and reviewer as equal participants of the scientific process;
• the main purpose of the review is to evaluate the scientific value of the article and its compliance with the general requirements for scientific research;
• the task of the remarks set out in the review is to improve the quality of the article;
• comments and recommendations should be clearly argued and based on objective data;
• the reviewer is obligated not to divulge the contents of the article until it is published, can not show or transfer the article to third parties without the appropriate permission of the editorial office.

In assessing the content of the article, you should pay attention to the following points:

• the main criterion of the article quality is its scientific or engineering novelty. If the article does not possess it, it should be rejected, even if it has a cognitive value;
• the practical value of an article for the construction industry is also important, it must be justified in the work.

The whole process of peer review proceeds through the E-submission system, in which the reviewer needs to register. Reviewing in the journal is “double-blind”, i.e. neither the reviewer, nor the author of the article, does not aware of each other's identities.

Reviewing in the Construction of Unique Buildings and Structures is carried out on a voluntary basis. If you wish to become a reviewer in our journal, please, contact us via e-mail: cubs@spbstu.ru.

Peer review procedure

1. After evaluating the article for compliance with the journal requirements, the editor appoints two or more scientific reviewers. An peer-reviewing invitation will be sent to your e-mail.
2. We kindly ask you to confirm your agreement to write a review, replying to the editor via e-mail indicated in the letter. In the absence of an answer, the editorial board believes that you agree to review the article.
3. The standard period for the preparation of one review is 2 weeks. If you need more time, please, contact the editorial office.
4. Based on the review of the article, the reviewer chooses one of the possible conclusions:

• accept;
• send for revision — after the author completes the article, it is sent for re-review;
• reject.

5. When sending an article after revision, the author should either correct the suggested by reviewer moments or explain the inability to do so.
6. For discussion with author and editor use the field “Discussion” on the article page.
7. After the author correction the article is submitted for re-review. If the article is accepted or rejected, the work on the article is finished.