Procedure for Handling

Procedure for Handling Complaints by the Editorial Board

  1. Submission of a complaint
  • A complaint may be submitted by an author, reviewer, reader, or any other member of the research community.
  • The complaint must be submitted in a written form (via email to the journal’s editorial office) and must include:
    • a clear and concise description of the violation;
    • supporting evidence (e.g., source links, copies of documents, relevant excerpts from texts, etc.);
    • the complainant’s contact details.
  1. Initial Assessment
  • The complaint is formally logged by the executive Editorial Secretary.
  • The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the matter falls within the scope of academic integrity and publication ethics.
  • In case of insufficient data, the complainant may be requested to supply additional documentation to enable evidence-based review.
  1. Review by the Editorial Board
  • The complaint is escalated to the Editorial Board for substantive consideration.
  • The Editorial Board considers:
    • the nature of the violation (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship attribution, breaches of the peer-review process, etc.);
    • the scope, severity, and potential consequences of the alleged breach;
    • the credibility, relevance, and sufficiency of the evidence submitted.
  • If necessary, independent external experts may be engaged to provide an impartial assessment.
  1. Decision-making

The Editorial Board may adopt one or more of the following resolutions:

  • Dismiss the complaint (where it is unfounded or not supported by adequate evidence).
  • Issue formal remarks to the author(s) and require the correction of errors or non-compliances.
  • Reject the manuscript (where misconduct is identified during the review process).
  • Retract an already published article (with an accompanying formal retraction notice).
  • Notify the author’s affiliated institution and/or employer of documented breaches.
  • Impose a temporary submission ban for the author(s) for a defined period (as a sanction proportionate to the breach).
  1. Notification of parties
  • The author(s) and the complainant receive written notification of the outcome and the rationale of the decision.
  • In the event of retraction, the journal publishes a notice on its website clearly stating the reasons for the retraction.
  1. Appeal
  • The author or the complainant may submit an appeal within 30 calendar days of receiving the decision.
  • Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where necessary, by members of the Editorial Board and/or external experts to ensure procedural robustness and due process.
  1. Governing principles of the process
  • Transparency – the procedure is formally documented and publicly available on the journal’s website.
  • Confidentiality – complainants and reviewers may remain anonymous upon request.
  • Impartiality – decisions are made collegially, based on a balanced assessment of all available evidence, with conflict-of-interest safeguards as applicable.

Alignment with International Standards – the procedure is governed by the principles and guidance of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).