1. General Provisions

The editorial board ensures the consideration of all reports concerning potential violations of academic integrity and publication ethics. The procedure is aimed at an objective clarification of the circumstances, protection of the rights of all parties involved, and maintenance of the journal’s scientific reputation.

The procedure for handling complaints is based on the international recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the principles of good editorial practice.

2. Submission of Complaints

The review process may be initiated by authors, reviewers, readers, representatives of academic institutions, or other interested parties.

A complaint must be submitted in written form (by e-mail to the official editorial address) and must include:

• a clear description of the alleged violation;
• justification and supporting materials (references, text excerpts, documents, etc.);
• contact information of the complainant.

Anonymous complaints may be considered provided that sufficient evidence is available.

3. Registration and Preliminary Assessment

Upon receipt of a complaint:

• the Managing Editor registers the submission;
• the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment of the content to determine:
• whether the issue falls within the competence of the editorial office;
• whether the submitted materials are sufficient for further consideration.

If necessary, the complainant may be asked to provide additional explanations or supporting documents.

4. Collegial Review

If the complaint is deemed to warrant further examination, the materials are referred to the Editorial Board for consideration.

During the review process, the following factors are taken into account:

• the nature of the alleged violation (plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, violation of the peer review process, etc.);
• the scale and potential impact of the violation;
• the availability and sufficiency of evidence.

If necessary, the editorial office may:

• involve independent experts;
• contact the institution where the research was conducted;
• initiate an additional investigation of the materials.

The author(s) of the article must be given the opportunity to provide written explanations.

5. Possible Decisions of the Editorial Board

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

• to consider the complaint unfounded and close the case;
• to recommend that the author(s) make corrections;
• to reject the manuscript (if the violation is established prior to publication);
• to initiate the retraction of a published article;
• to inform the relevant academic institution or employer of the author(s);
• to impose editorial restrictions on future submissions to the journal for a specified period.

The decision is formalized in the minutes of the Editorial Board meeting.

6. Notification of the Parties

The following parties are informed in writing of the outcome of the review:

• the complainant;
• the author(s) of the manuscript.

In the case of retraction or the publication of corrections, the relevant information is published on the official website of the journal.

7. Right to Appeal

The author or the complainant has the right to appeal the decision within 30 calendar days from the date of receiving the notification.

The appeal is considered by the Editor-in-Chief, with the possible involvement of members of the Editorial Board or independent experts. The decision made as a result of the appeal is final.

8. Principles of the Procedure

The process of handling complaints is based on the following principles:

• transparency – clear regulation of the procedure and its openness for review;
• confidentiality – protection of the anonymity of complainants and experts (upon request);
• impartiality – collegial decision-making based on objective evidence;
• compliance with international standards – alignment with generally accepted norms of publication ethics.