Complaint Review Procedure
Complaint Review Procedure Regarding Violations of Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics has been developed in accordance with international standards of publication ethics, in particular the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and applies to: authors of manuscripts and published articles; reviewers; members of the editorial board; and any other persons involved in the journal's publication process.
Grounds for submitting a complaint include: plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of data, improper authorship, duplicate submission, undisclosed conflict of interest, and similar violations. Complaints are also accepted regarding: biased or improper peer review; disclosure of confidential manuscript information by reviewers; abuse of position by members of the editorial board; unjustified delays or refusal to consider a manuscript; discrimination against authors on any grounds; and improper handling of complaints or communications from process participants.
The following parties are entitled to submit a complaint: authors or co-authors of a publication; reviewers of the relevant manuscript; members of the editorial board; third parties who have identified a violation in a published or submitted work; institutions, organisations, or their authorised representatives.
A complaint must be submitted in written (electronic) form and shall include:
- full name (or official title) of the complainant and their contact details (email address);
- title of the publication or manuscript to which the complaint relates (DOI, title, authors, year of publication);
- a specific description of the alleged violation, including the relevant facts and circumstances;
- evidence supporting the complaint (screenshots, links, files, results of plagiarism or AI-detection software checks, etc.);
- date of the complaint and signature (or scanned or digital signature).
A complaint may be submitted by one of the following means:
- by email to the editorial address, marked "COMPLAINT";
- by postal mail to the editorial address.
To review a complaint, the Editor-in-Chief shall establish a temporary Commission comprising members of the editorial board and/or external experts. The composition of the Commission shall take into account: the absence of conflicts of interest; the presence of relevant professional expertise; and the assurance of impartial review. In the course of the investigation, the Commission is entitled to: request explanations and documents from all interested parties; engage independent experts in the relevant field; use plagiarism and AI detection software and other analytical tools; contact the employers of persons under investigation; and request access to primary research data.
The person against whom the complaint is filed has the right to: be informed of the full substance of the complaint and the evidence; submit written explanations, objections, and additional evidence; be present during any oral hearings (if held); and appeal the decision.
The complainant has the right to: receive information on the progress of the complaint review; submit additional evidence during the investigation; and withdraw the complaint prior to a decision being made.
Upon completion of the review, the editorial board may adopt one or more of the following decisions:
- dismissal of the complaint — the violation has not been confirmed or the complaint has been deemed unfounded;
- correction (Correction / Erratum);
- retraction of the article.
Complaint review timeline: up to 40 working days; in exceptional cases, an additional period may be granted.
The editorial office undertakes to: maintain the confidentiality of the personal data of all participants in the procedure in accordance with applicable data protection legislation; not disclose the identity of the complainant without their written consent, except where disclosure is necessary for the investigation; retain complaint documentation for a minimum of 3 years; and not use information obtained in the course of the complaint review for purposes unrelated to such review.
