(Journal of) Structural Engineering

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

All parties (i.e., editors, authors, reviewers, and the publisher) involved in publication activities in our journal, Structural Engineering, shall abide by the following Publication Ethics guidelines, which are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of editors

Fair play: Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their intellectual content, without regard to author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation.

Confidentiality: Editors and any editorial staff 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used for an Editor's own research purposes without the author’s the explicit written consent.

Publication decisions: All submitted manuscripts being considered for publication shall undergo a peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Duties of peer reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions: The peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with authors, may also assist authors with improving the manuscript.

Promptness: Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except when authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument being previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarities or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: The invited reviewers should not evaluate 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 submission. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Duties of authors

Reporting standards: Authors of the 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 manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent submission/publication: Authors should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources: Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made substantial contributions to the reported study but who do not meet the above authorship definition must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list, and that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Authors should disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed in such a way as to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the reported work should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works: When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Duties of the publisher

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher will work closely with the editors to take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe case, the complete retraction of the affected article.

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of published articles, as well as to ensuring the accessibility of these articles through cooperation with other organizations and maintaining its own digital files.

Download PDF file of the statement here

Editor-in-Chief

Associated editors

Editorial board members