Procedure for Handling Complaints Regarding Ethical Violations

  1. General Provisions

1.1. This Procedure defines the mechanism for submitting and considering complaints related to violations of academic integrity principles, policies, procedures, and ethical standards of scientific publication. The policy is based on the principles of transparency, objectivity, confidentiality, and fairness, and it complies with international standards.

1.2. Complaints are regarded as an essential tool for improving the quality of the publication process and ensuring trust in scientific publications.

1.3. Complaints may concern:

  • violations of publication ethics (plagiarism, data falsification, citation manipulation, etc.);
  • violations of the peer review procedure or editorial decisions;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • misconduct by editors or reviewers;
  • delays or lack of transparency in the editorial process;
  • violations of copyright or authorship (unjustified inclusion or exclusion of authors). 1.4. Complaints may be submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, or other interested parties.

 

  1. Filing a Complaint

2.1. A complaint must be submitted in written form (via email to the official address of the editorial office).

2.2. A complaint must include:

  • the full name (or entity name) of the applicant and their contact information (email address);
  • the title of the article related to the complaint (DOI, title, authors, year of publication);
  • a specific description of the alleged violation, indicating relevant facts and circumstances;
  • evidence supporting the complaint (screenshots, links, files, results from specialised text-matching detection systems, etc.);
  • the date of the complaint and a signature (or digital signature). Anonymous complaints will not be considered.

2.3. The Editorial Board reserves the right to refuse to consider complaints that contain offensive, threatening, or bad-faith content.

 

  1. Complaint Review Procedure

3.1. Within 5 working days of receiving the complaint, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised member of the Editorial Board performs an initial assessment of the complaint's merit and decides on its further consideration. The applicant receives a notification of the complaint's registration or of a refusal to consider it.

3.2. To review the complaint, the Editor-in-Chief forms an ad-hoc Commission consisting of Editorial Board members and/or invited external experts. The composition of the commission is formed to ensure the absence of conflicts of interest, relevant professional competence, and the impartiality of the review.

3.3. Based on the results of the review, the following decisions may be made:

  • to reject the complaint as unfounded;
  • to require a correction or clarification of the publication;
  • to publish an expression of concern;
  • to retract the article;
  • to terminate cooperation with the reviewer or editor;
  • to notify relevant institutions (in cases of serious violations). The decision must be proportionate to the severity of the violation.

3.4. The timeframe for considering a complaint is up to 30 working days. All stages of complaint consideration are carried out in compliance with the principles of confidentiality and impartiality. Personal data processing in the proceedings follows the principle of minimisation and complies with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommendations.