Authors must provide the editorial board with the text of the article, drawn up in accordance with the requirements below and a license agreement signed by all authors.

Article requirements

To format an article, it is recommended to use the TEMPLATE, as well as follow the recommendations below.

Margins: top, bottom, right, left - 20 mm. Portrait orientation. Articles are submitted in docx format. (MS Word 2007-2010). Recommended number of characters in articles: from 15,000 to 30,000 characters with spaces. Font-family - Times New Roman. The font size of the main text is 11; line spacing is single spaced (from 5 to 10 pages of A4 typewritten text, not including tables and figures).

Design Recommendations

Tables are created using Word tools (not pictures) and are located inside the text of the article without text wrapping, in the order the results presented in the table are mentioned. Tables should have a serial number and a title (see template). A reference to the table in the text is required.

Figures should be clear and readable. They should be placed in the textual order. If there is a text in the figures, it should be readable and, if possible, correctable by the editorial staff.

It is not required to convert graphic materials made in Excel to other formats.

Figures are inserted into the text without text wrapping. Figures should have a serial number and a title (see template). Figure titles should be in the text. Embedding titles in the body of the figure, scanning and formatting in the caption format is UNACCEPTABLE. A reference to the figure in the text is required.

The information given in the tables and figures should be described in the article.

Formulas should be typed using the formula editor program. The International System of Units (SI) should be used for physical quantities.

Formulas are aligned to the right edge of the text. Each formula must have a number indicated in parentheses. Embedding the sequence number of the formula in the body of the formula is UNACCEPTABLE.

D = a·3 (1)

The formula must be editable; inserting formulas as figures is UNACCEPTABLE.

Reference information:

• full name of the authors;

• title of the article (should not contain more than 10 words);

• the official name of the organization (or organizations, if the team of authors consists of representatives of several organizations) without abbreviations, the full postal address with an index;

• email address of a corresponding author.

Abstract and Keywords Guide

Abstract (from 150 to 250 words, in Russian and English). The structure of an abstract is similar to the structure of a scientific article and contains the following main elements:

• description of a study object;

• research methods;

• main scientific results.

Recommendations for writing style.

1. The language of an abstract should be as simple and understandable as possible for a wide range of specialists. It is recommended to avoid niche words, abbreviations and symbols.

2. The syntactic structure of the abstract is also as simple as possible. It is better to use short sentences, divide the text into paragraphs (usually 2-3 paragraphs).

3. Since the abstract has a standard structure, you can use some cliches of a scientific language: reviewed / studied / generalized / analyzed; shown that / received / proposed.

The abstract should not contain:

• excessive introductory phrases (“The author of the article considers ...”, “In this article ...”, etc.)

• vague reference to the time of writing the article (“At present ...”, “At the moment ...”, “To this date ...”, etc.);

• general description;

• quotes, tables, diagrams, abbreviations;

• references to literature sources.

Keywords or phrases to the article in Russian and English (from 5 to 7 words / phrases) should reflect the main content of the article, it is not recommended to use the terms of the title and abstract, as well as to use the terms of the subject area of research.

Structure of the article

Introduction. This section describes the study object and relevance of research, provides an overview of Russian and foreign literary sources, which allows to identify the main problems in this field, and the solution the research will be focused on. The goal of research and a list of objectives to be solved are presented.

Methods. The applied research methods are described in detail. The method must be described in such a way that another researcher is able to reproduce it.

Results and discussion. This section includes an analysis of the results obtained, their interpretation, and comparison with the results of other authors with references to their publications. It is recommended to present the results mainly in the form of tables, graphs and other illustrations. At the discretion of the authors, this section may be divided into subsections.

Conclusion. In this section, the authors sum up the results of scientific research on the basis of the results obtained and the identified dependencies, formulate conclusions that should logically correspond to the objectives.

Acknowledgments. This section is optional. It may contain a reference to the source of funding (grant, government program, etc.), the author can also express their thanks to people who contributed to the research or offered consultations on the article.

Literature/ (in Russian and English languages) (References))

Literature review

The reference to the source is given in square brackets in the text in the textual order (for example, [1], [1, 2], [3–7]). The text of the article should contain references to all sources from the list of references.

The number of references is at least 20.

For review articles – 40-60.

Where at least 50-60% of references are given to the publications included in the International Databases (Web of Science and Scopus).

The sources should be relevant and contain at least 8 articles from scientific journals not older than 10 years, where 6 articles are not older than 3 years.

Self-citation - no more than 20%

It is not recommended to provide references to:

• thesis statements;
• regulatory documentation (State All-Union standard, SNiP);
• dissertations and their abstracts;
• articles from non-peer-reviewed sources;
• unknown conferences or materials of conferences and sources that are not in the public domain;
• educational literature (textbooks, teaching aids, lecture notes, etc.)

The author provides a list of references in two languages: in Russian and English (references).

If the source has doi, it is mandatory to indicate it.

Examples of a reference list in Russian

The list of references in Russian should be done in accordance with the State All-Union standard 7.0.5-2008.

Publication ethics

“Bulletin of BSTU named after. V. G. Shukhov” complies with the ethical standards adopted by the scientific community, in particular, with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP).

1. Journal Editorial Ethics

1.1 The editor-in-chief and editors in their activity are guided by Journal policy. Editor reserves an exceptional right to either accept or reject a manuscript for publication.

1.2 Editor may reject a manuscript prior to peer review thereof on a well-reasoned grounds (e.g. the article is not consistent with the subject matter of the Journal; the article is of a low scientific quality; the article was published earlier by another publishing house; the contents of the article was found contradictory to the ethical basics followed by the Journal).

1.3 Editor-in-Chief accepts an article for publication according to his/her confidence that such article is consistent with the Journal basics. The editor-in-chief can consult with other members of the editorial office, associate editors and also with reviewers in the course of making decision on the publication of article. He promotes respect for the principle of “blind” reviewing of articles.

1.4 Editors shall guarantee that all materials published are consistent with the international scientific standards and basics.

1.5 In the event of conflicting interests between an author and an Editor, such material shall be transferred to another Editor. An Editor transfers all eligible manuscripts for review by peer reviewers having related competences on the subject matter of such manuscripts. The Editors ensure confidentiality and non-disclosure of the names of peer reviewers.

1.6 The Editors guarantee the highest quality and integrity of publications in the Journal, as well as publish updates, explanatory notes and apologies when needed.

1.7 An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

1.8 Full text of all archived files and current issues of the journal are in open access on the website. Electronic version of the journal is a publication of open access for readers. When using materials it is necessary to refer to the journal and the authors of articles (to publication in the journal). Archiving of preprints (before peer-review) and postprint (prepared to publication but not yet published) articles is not allowed. For archiving the authors and other users can only use publishing version of pdf files of articles immediately after the publication of the next issue of the journal, without embargo.

1.9 Allowed free use of the materials for personal use and free use for informational, scientific, educational or cultural purposes in accordance with article 1273 and 1274 Chapter 70 of part IV of the Civil code of the Russian Federation. Other uses are possible only after the conclusion of the relevant written agreements with the rightholder.

2. Peer Review Ethics

2.1 The Peer Review process being the most important part of the scientific information exchange, the Editorial Office requests that the peer reviewers maintain:

• Confidentiality: no provided manuscript information shall be disclosed except to the Editor;
• Neutrality: entire manuscript assessment with no personal approach to criticising the author; any potential conflict of interests between a peer reviewer and a study peer reviewed, including the authors and/or such study financing institution shall be immediately communicated;
• Impartiality: assessing the manuscript intellectual content regardless of the author’s race, sex, sexual orientation, religious commitment, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views of the author;
• Clear and well-grounded opinion; source acknowledgement basics – references to the subject matter in the publications not mentioned in the manuscript; references to essential similarity and/or coincidence with the reviewed manuscript or to any other publication, which may be known to the Editor.

2.2 Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

2.3 Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible because not having enough time for it should notify the editor of the Journal and excuse himself from the review process.

2.4 Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

2.5 Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.6 Reviewers should not consider 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 papers.

3. Authorship Ethics

3.1 All rights to articles belong to their authors. The right to use the article the author transfers to the publisher of journals based on a non-exclusive license, retaining exclusive rights (including the right to publish the article in other journals, but only after its first publication in the journal).

3.2 The exclusive right to use materials of the International Scientific Research Journal belongs to the editorial board of the journal.

3.3 The Author refers to all persons (authors) who participated in the research and creation of the manuscript and responsible for its content. The person (the author) presented the manuscript to the editor is responsible for the completeness of a group of authors and agreement with them all the changes made to the text of the manuscript on the results of its review and editing.

3.4 The editorial board expects the authors submitting their articles for publication in the journal to observe the following principles:

– originality of the research;

– providing reliable results of the accomplished work, lack of false statements, correctness of data presentation;

– objective discussion of research significance;

– inadmissibility of personal, critical or disparaging remarks and accusations against other researchers, complete elimination of plagiarism;

– recognition of other people contribution, mandatory availability of bibliographic references to all external sources of information, all publications relevant to the articles (including his own previously published articles and scientific papers) avoiding herewith self-plagiarism (repetetive, duplicate publication).

3.5 The author must inform the editorial board about all his works and the works of his co-authors, on topics intersecting with the submitted article and those that are under consideration in other publications.

3.6 Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

3.7 The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

3.8 Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

3.9 All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

3.10 When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of the Journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

3.11 Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

3.12 All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

3.13 When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of the Journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

4. Journal Editorial Board Ethics

4.1 Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of the Journal in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

4.2 Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

4.3 Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

In accordance with the established procedure, all scientific articles submitted to the journal’s editorial board go through two necessary stages: technical expertise and peer review.

1. Technical expertise (within 3-4 business days) includes the followings procedures:

– the article relevance to the thematic directions of the journal;

– availability of a full set of documents;

– compliance with a template;

– percentage of plagiarism.

After the technical expertise the article can be rejected, corrected by filing a revised return or submitted for review.

Reasons for an article rejection include:

– the article irrelevance to the thematic directions of the journal;

– low-quality article;

– high percentage of plagiarism;

– violation of publication ethics.

Reasons for an article corrected by filing a revised return include:

– partial unavailability of required documents;

– incompliance with a template.

After correction according to comments, author should resend the full set of documents.

2. Peer review is accomplished by members of editorial board, leading scientists of BSTU named after V.G. Shukhov as well as ad hoc reviewers who are the acknowledged expert in relevant subject area.

The chief editor or deputy chief editor select a reviewer for the article.

If the editors cannot provide a reviewer in the field of knowledge to which the article is about, the editors propose the author to provide a list of potential reviewers who could do a quality review.

3. Reviewing process is 3 weeks at least.

4. The review contains the following comments:

a) correspondence or no correspondence between title and subject of the article;

b) correspondence or no correspondence of the article to up-to-date theoretical and practical advances in the field of research;

c) simplicity to presentation the article in terms of language, style, structure, visualization of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas;

d) relevance of the article, taking into account the novelty and feasibility of the results, relevance of research methods;

e) any comments those are proposed to the author to correct;

f) Reviewer conclusion: the article is recommended for publication subject to adjustments or not recommended for publication.

 All reviews are certified at the institution where the reviewer works.

5. The journal uses a double-blind peer review.

6. Based on peer review results, the article can be rejected. In this case the editors send the author a reasonable refusal within 10 days.

Articles are not accepted for publication:

– if are incompliance with a template and with the requirements of the editorial board;

– if the authors don't want to do a technical revision of articles;

– if the authors do not comply with the comments of the reviewer or reasonably do not refute them.

An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication is not accepted for re-review.

Negative review is sent to the author by e-mail.

Articles that have received a negative review are not published.

Based on peer review results, the article can be corrected by filing a revised return.

In this case the article is sent to the authors with the comments of the reviewer and editor.

Authors should make all required corrections to the final version of the manuscript and return the adjusted article, as well as its identical electronic version, together with the original text and an accompanying response letter to the reviewer.

The article adjusted by the author is sent for re-review. Articles sent to the authors for correction should be returned to the editors no later than 14 days after receipt.

The return of the article at a later date leads to a shift in the planned publication date.

Based on peer review results, the article can be submitted for publication.

A positive review is not sufficient to submit for publication. The final decision on acceptance for article publication is made by the editorial board, headed by the chief editor.

After the editorial board of the journal "Additive fabrication technology" makes a decision on the admission of an article to publication, the author is informed about this accurately to within the journal issue where the article will be published.

7. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office for a 5 years at least

Redakciya ne vzymaet platu za rassmotrenie, recenzirovanie rukopisey, a takzhe skachivanie statey (vse stat'i nahodyatsya v otkrytom dostupe).

Osnovnye izdatel'skie rashody neset na sebe BGTU im. V.G. Shuhova.

S avtorov vzimaetsya obyazatel'naya plata za podgotovku i publikaciyu materialov, poluchivshih polozhitel'noe zaklyuchenie recenzentov i redakcionnoy kollegii zhurnala.

All papers submitted to the “Bulletin of BSTU named after. V. G. Shukhov” journal pass the procedure of reviewing according to the order established by editorial board.

Peer-Reviewing order

1. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review.
2. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations: – to accept the paper in its present state; – to invited the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached; – that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist; – to reject the manuscript outright.
3. Primary examination is conducted by the editors of the editorial and publishing department of the “Bulletin of BSTU named after. V. G. Shukhov” journal. During the primary examination only supporting documents are considered, the relevance of the scientific article to the journal profile, rules and requirements is evaluated, set by the editorial board of the journal, the inspection of scientific article on uniqueness is carried out. If in the reviewing, “checking for plagiarism” and editing processes reveal instances of plagiarism or false references, the article will be rejected for reviewing, nor will this author’s other articles be accepted for further reviewing process.
4. In the case of the manuscript relevance to the journal profile, established rules and requirements, it is accepted by the editorial board and is sent for the reviewing. Otherwise the article is rejected without further reviewing.
5. A bilateral anonymous (“blind”) peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff. This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.
6. The reviewer is chosen among the members of the editorial board as well as invited reviewers or the leading experts in the profile of the given article. The decision to select a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal or the editor in charge.
7. Reviewers prepare reviews of journal articles on a voluntary basis. Reviewers have the right to decline invitations to review a particular article at their discretion, including manuscripts in which they feel unqualified. Reviewers should submit their reviews in a scanned form.
8. The deadline for writing the review is established by the agreement with the reviewer in accordance with the reviewing contract, but should not exceed 2 months.
9. The information or ideas obtained by reviewers in the course of peer review of articles should be confidential and may not be used for their personal interests. Expert assessment should be objective and clear with specific arguments and suggestions for improving the article, even if the manuscript, in their opinion, cannot be published.
10. Reviewers in their reviews have to determine the possible borrowing or a repeat of previously presented research findings according to the author and to draw the editor-in-chief’s attention to any significant similarity between the considered articles and other publications, and official papers which they know.
11. The reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing an article:

• “recommended for publication”;
• “recommended taking into account the correction of the comments made by the reviewer”;
• “article must be sent for revision”;
• “not recommended for publication”.

12. The review should reveal the relevance of the presented material, the degree of scientific novelty of the research; determine the compliance with the proposed publication of the text with the general profile of the publication and artistic level of presentation (style, narrative literacy, linguistic culture, etc.).
13. If the review contains recommendations to revise or modify the manuscript, the Associate Editor sends the text of the review to the Author and suggests considering them when preparing a new version of the manuscript or refute them (in part or in whole) with reason. The revised paper should be returned within 30-60 days (depending on the number of recommendations and their complexity). It should be accompanied by a cover letter containing replies to all comments and clarifying all revisions in the manuscript (as a separate file, highlighting all modifications). The finalized manuscript is resent for peer reviewing, an answer to the Reviewer being attached (e.g. “Dear Reviewer…. Thank you for your careful reading of my/our paper…I/we tried to consider all the comments… but at the same time…”). The receipt date will be the date when the revised manuscript is returned. All manuscripts are sent to Reviewers for re-review and approval.
14. In case of a refusal by authors from article correction, they should in written or oral form report to the editorial board about the refusal to publish an article. If authors do not return the corrected version for 3 months since the opinion being sent, editorial board annuls the article from publication reserve even if there is no refusal from correction from the authors. In such cases authors are reported that their article is removed from the register due to the correction period expiration. Decision about the refusal of publication of an article is made at the conference of the editorial board based on the reviewers’ recommendations. Article which is not recommended by the decision of editorial board is not accepted for the second review. Information about the refusal of publication is sent to the author via e-mail.
15. If an author and reviewers have insolvable contradictions about the article, the editorial board has a right to send the article for the additional review. In case of conflict the editor-in-chief makes a decision on the editorial board conference.
16. The articles are reviewed and accepted only after at least two positive reviews of three reviewers
17. After making a decision by the chief editorial board to admit the article for publication, the author is informed about it.
18. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
19. The editorial board reviews all manuscripts to offer an expert judgement. All reviewers are recognized scholars who have published their own papers with the same subject matter within the last three years. The reviews are kept by editorial staff for five years.
20. Publishing Edition sends to the authors copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal.
21. The content of each issue is approved at the meeting of the chief editorial board of the journal, where taking into account all the reviewers’ opinions the question of acceptance for publication of each article is settled.
22. The originals of reviews are kept in editorial office of the journal for 3 years, including to provide the competent authorities on request.

When submitting and rejecting articles, no fees are charged. The author pays publishing expenses only if the article is accepted, after checking for plagiarism and reviewing.

APCs cover the following:

• The editorial procedure, including administration related to peer review, author revisions, and final decision-making.
• Article production which includes professional language editing, type-setting, formatting, and production in PDF, XML, HTML, and etc.
• Article hosting and dissemination such as efforts for website maintenance and linking with indexing databases.
• Journal administration, including managing the journal website and editorial board, and promotion of the journal among the research community.

Payment of publishing expenses is carried out after the positive acceptance of the article by the reviewer and amounts to:

For all categories of authors, the publication fee is 1,500 ₽/article up to 8 pages.

Pechatnyy tirazh zhurnala rasprostranyaetsya po podpiske. Podpisnoy indeks v ob'edinennom kataloge «Pressa Rossii» – 44446.

Online  podpisku na NTZh "Vestnik BGTU im. V.G. Shuhova" mozhno osuschestvit' po sleduyuschey ssylke  http://www.akc.ru/itm/2558104627/

Po voprosam priobreteniya otdel'nyh nomerov mozhet obratit'sya v redakciyu.

Stoimost' odnogo ekzemplyara zhurnala – 700 rub.

Peresylka avtorskogo ekzemplyara po Rossii – 300 rub., v strany blizhnego zarubezh'ya - v zavisimosti ot stoimosti uslug pochty

VAC