Ethical obligations of members of the editorial board and reviewers: 

• After an anonymous (blind) review by one of the members of the editorial board, the collection publishes articles that contain the results of scientific research and the implementation of new results of fundamental and applied research in the field of physical foundations of modern technologies in the construction industry. 

• The editor bears full responsibility for accepting or rejecting the manuscript, who approaches the fulfillment of these duties thoughtfully and carefully, taking into account the reviewer's recommendations regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted to the editorial office. Manuscripts may also be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not meet the profile of the collection. 

• The editor and members of the editorial board must not provide access to any information regarding the content of the manuscripts under consideration to other persons, except for persons involved in the professional evaluation of this manuscript. After receiving a positive response from the reviewer and editor, the article can be published in the collection and placed on the relevant electronic resources. 

• In accordance with international legislation on the protection of copyrights to electronic information resources, the materials of the site, electronic collection, or project cannot be reproduced in whole or in part in any form (electronic or printed) without the prior written consent of the authors and the editorial board of the collection. The use of the collection materials in the context of other documents must be accompanied by a mandatory reference to the original source. The publication and/or distribution of the collection materials by third parties or organizations on paper or electronic media is prohibited. 

• The reviewer must provide a timely response to the article with a clearly stated conclusion on the recommendation of the article for publication. If the manuscript has shortcomings that can be eliminated, the reviewer must outline a range of issues that require improvement and notify the editor about this; manuscripts can be submitted for re-review after eliminating the specified shortcomings. Ethical obligations of authors: Articles sent to the editorial office must be formatted in accordance with the requirements of the collection and in accordance with DSTU 8302:2015 and Resolution of the Higher Attestation Commission of Ukraine No. 7-05/1 for professional publications. 

• A scientist has the right and obligation to protect his scientific priority. At the same time, the publication of inaccurate and unconvincing scientific results, as well as publication in non-scientific publications with the aim of achieving priority, is unacceptable. 

• A scientist recognizes international and national legal norms regarding copyright. He may use information from any publications provided that he indicates the source and draws a clear line between his own data and the achievements of others. Borrowing for his own publications any photographs, drawings, tables, diagrams, etc. requires, according to the publishing rules, the permission of the author or the publishing house. 

• A scientist should not repeat his scientific publications in order to increase their number. If, for the promotion of scientific achievements, it is advisable to publish the same work in different journals, the editors of the latter should be informed of the fact of publication in other publications. Reviewing of articles: Reviewing of articles is carried out by one of the members of the editorial board of the collection. The reviewer submits a review to the editorial office in written or electronic form, in which he confirms the compliance of the article with the requirements, possible comments and a conclusion on the acceptance of the article for publication or its rejection. For authors of articles, the review is anonymous, the names of the reviewers are not indicated in the issues of the collection. The review period is no more than two weeks. The reviewers' comments that require correction are sent to the author. The author's responses and the corrected version of the article are sent back to the reviewer. The article can be published only if there is a positive review.