The editorial board of the journal Budownictwo i Architektura (Civil and Architectural Engineering) and Lublin University of Technology Publishing House undertake to adhere to the highest standards of publication ethics in scientific texts. This policy has been developed by the Editorial Board and is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE ethics standards), in particular:

• The principles of transparency and good practice developed by COPE,
• Good practices in review procedures developed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education,
• The Code of Ethics for Researchers developed by the Polish Academy of Sciences,
• Recommendations for promoting integrity in scientific journal publications prepared by the Scientific Editorial Board.

The ethical principles implemented by BiA are consistent with the principles adopted by the publisher of the Journal - Lublin University of Technology Publishing House

Principles for authors

• Articles must be original, previously unpublished and not submitted simultaneously to other journals.
• Authors confirm that the submitted works do not infringe the copyrights of third parties, that quotations and any materials taken from third parties are correctly marked. In the case of works containing photographic materials, diagrams, drawings or research results, authors should provide appropriate consent for their publication.
• Authors should make every effort to ensure that their works meet high scientific and editorial standards, in accordance with the guidelines posted on the Journal's website.
• Authors confirm that they have not used generative AI tools in their work. Furthermore, they confirm that if AI-based support tools have been used, they have verified the text of the manuscript.

• By submitting an article, authors confirm that they have prepared the manuscript text in accordance with the Journal's requirements, have verified it linguistically and editorially, taking into account the completeness of all tables, figures, and formulas, and that they have correctly prepared the list of references.

• Only persons who have actually participated in the creation of the work and have been accepted by the entire team may be indicated as co-authors of the article – transparency in the attribution of authorship is mandatory. The corresponding author should ensure that all persons involved in the creation of the article are listed as co-authors.
• Changes in the list of authors made after submitting the paper to the Journal require justification and consent of all co-authors and must be reported to the Editorial Board prior to publication. An unjustified change in the list of authors may result in the withdrawal of the article. The final decision in this matter is made by the Editor.
• Authors may suggest potential reviewers for their work, provided that there is no conflict of interest (no direct personal or professional relationships, no scientific collaboration in the last two years, e.g. co-authored publications). The Editorial Board is not obliged to select reviewers proposed by the authors.
• Authors are required to report any conflicts of interest with all persons/entities involved in the publishing process.
• Authors shall refrain from manipulating citations, i.e. excessive citation of their own works, exchange of citations between groups of authors (so-called citation farms or citation rings).
• Authors should disclose all sources of funding that enabled the publication to be produced.
• If errors or inaccuracies are detected in a published work, authors are required to immediately report this to the Editorial Board and cooperate in correcting or withdrawing the publication.
• The principles governing the reviewing process
• Reviewers should hold at least a doctoral degree. In exceptional and particularly justified cases, when a narrow field of science limits the availability of experts with doctoral degrees, a person with a master's degree may be allowed to conduct a review, provided that they have the relevant knowledge, experience and recognition in the field. The decision to appoint a suitable reviewer is made by the Section/Journal editor. Doctoral students at the Lublin University of Technology may perform reviews as a form of scientific practice under the supervision of a senior researcher.
• Reviews are conducted on a double-blind basis, which means that both the author and the reviewer remain anonymous to each other.
• The reviewer selection process is open and dynamic. The editorial team seeks experts from around the world, striving to ensure geographical, thematic and gender diversity.
• Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality, objectivity and report any conflicts of interest. If such conflicts arise, they must immediately notify the editorial board and refuse to perform the review. Examples of conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to: personal relationships (e.g., family, friendship, conflicts), professional relationships (e.g., professional subordination), close scientific collaboration in the last two years (e.g., co-authorship), and other financial or personal connections that may affect the impartiality of the review.
• Reviewers are obliged to behave ethically in relation to the submissions (texts) entrusted to them, including not using them or making them available to third parties. This also applies to manuscripts that have not been published.
• In the event of detecting plagiarism, unjustified citations, etc., reviewers are required to notify the Editorial Board.
• Reviewers do not receive financial compensation for their contribution. After the review is completed, the Editorial Board sends the reviewer a letter of thanks, which allows them to independently submit the review to their scientific profile, e.g. Web of Science Researcher Profile.
• A list of reviewers from previous years is available at: https://ph.pollub.pl/index.php/bia/reviewers.

Principles for Editorial Board

• Each submitted article is initially read and analysed by the Editor-in-Chief.
• The Editor has the right not to send the work for review if he or she considers that it does not correspond to the subject matter of the Journal. The Editor may also make a similar decision if he or she finds that the work does not meet formal or linguistic criteria or considers the text to be unscientific.
• The editor may ask the author to make corrections or provide explanations before submitting the work for review.
• If a decision is made to proceed with the work, the Editor reviews the report generated by the plagiarism detection tool, iThenticate. The editorial team not only analyses the percentage of similarity of the article, but also thoroughly verifies the authenticity of the text fragments.
• The managing editor sends the work to reviewers as soon as possible. The selection of reviewers is the sole decision of the editor. The review process ends with a minimum of two reviews.
• After obtaining at least two reviews, the managing editor reviews them and decides on how to proceed (accept, minor revision, major revision, decline). The editor-in-chief may also add comments if they consider that the text revised after review still contains ambiguities or inaccuracies, e.g. the editor may recommend that the author add a drawing with a map to illustrate a space described in the article. The Editor's comments may also concern, among other things, style adjustments, changes to the structure of the work, the development of a chapter/subchapter, or the author's compliance with the reviewers' comments.
• Authors are required to respond to reviewers' comments and make changes to the text if necessary. Changes and responses to reviewers' comments must be clearly presented in the revised version of the manuscript. Authors must clearly respond to each comment made by reviewers. The revised version should contain two files: an updated file with the text of the paper, indicating the changes made after the reviews, and a file with responses to the reviews.
• The managing editor decides whether to send the revised manuscript and responses to reviewers' comments for re-review or, in the case of minor changes, makes the decision independently.

Procedure for dealing with ethical violations

The editorial board of the journal Budownictwo i Architektura (Civil and Architectural Engineering) undertakes to act promptly and thoroughly in cases of suspected violations of publication ethics.

• In such cases, the Scientific Council of the Publishing House and the Editorial Board of the journal intervene, analysing the reports in a transparent and objective manner.
• Specific persons responsible for reviewing and coordinating matters include the Ethics Editor (Mr Tomasz Lipecki) and members of the Board, whose composition is available on the journal's website: Editorial team.
• The time frame for each procedure is strictly defined and respected to ensure that the matter is clarified and a decision is made quickly.
• Communication with the author, reviewers and other parties is clear and professional – all stages are documented and archived.
• The editorial board of the journal works closely with the publisher, Lublin University of Technology Publishing House, and, if necessary, with other entities, in order to effectively detect and/or resolve disputes related to compliance with publication ethics.
• The editorial team makes decisions depending on the type and severity of the violation. These include: requesting clarification and/or correction of the text, retracting the article, informing the author's affiliated institutions, and in extreme cases, reporting the matter to the appropriate authorities.