Complaints and Appeals Policy

The recognition and resolution of any issues related to the conduct of research and the publication of its results are fundamental aspects of our editorial policy. Complaints provide the Editorial Board with an opportunity to constructively improve the quality of the journal and refine its publishing policies. In handling complaints and appeals, the journal strictly adheres to the guidelines and principles set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Subject and Addressing of Complaints

Complaints regarding articles, authors, or reviewers should be sent to the journal’s official email: visnyk_ek_n@pstu.edu . Such complaints include, but are not limited to:

  • disputes over authorship;
  • plagiarism, data fabrication, and misappropriation of research results;
  • redundant publication or "salami slicing";
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest or reviewer bias;
  • breach of confidentiality by reviewers;
  • misuse of privileged information by reviewers.

Complaints regarding the Editorial Board, the editorial office, or its staff should be sent to the Publisher at office@pstu.edu. These may include complaints such as:

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest of editorial board members;
  • breach of confidentiality or violations in editorial processes;
  • bias or harmful actions by editorial staff;
  • misconduct of journal staff (e.g., impolite or delayed responses);
  • policies regarding publication administration or suggestions for policy improvement.

2. Requirements for Submitting a Complaint

The Journal and the Publisher commit to considering all complaints, whether they originate from open sources or are submitted anonymously. However, in accordance with COPE Flowcharts, a complaint must be substantiated and contain compelling evidence of misconduct. If a complaint concerns the content of a published article, we request an annotated PDF/Microsoft Word document highlighting the specific parts of the text that cause concern.

3. Procedure and Timelines for Consideration

The Publisher and the Editorial Board handle complaints promptly and efficiently according to the following schedule:

  1. Acknowledgment: Within 7 days, the complainant will receive an acknowledgment of receipt.
  2. Investigation: The Editor contacts all parties involved, examines the submission history, and, if necessary, involves relevant research institutions or funding bodies in accordance with the COPE guidelines on cooperation with research institutions.
  3. Reporting: Investigations typically last two weeks, after which the complainant receives a response. If the investigation requires more time, the complainant will receive progress updates every two weeks until a final decision is reached.

4. Editorial Actions Following the Investigation

If an investigation finds a complaint to be justified, the Editorial Board shall take appropriate measures in accordance with COPE protocols. The decision may include:

  • Correction/Erratum: Publication of a formal correction, if an identified error (technical, typographical error in formulas, or author names) is unintentional and does not invalidate the scientific merit or the integrity of the article’s conclusions.
  • Expression of Concern: Publication of an editorial statement in accordance with the  COPE Guidelines on Expressions of Concern. This measure is applied when an investigation into potential misconduct is ongoing, the evidence is inconclusive, but there are significant grounds to believe that readers should be notified about potential reliability issues.
  • Retraction: Withdrawal of the article in cases where plagiarism, data fabrication, serious ethical violations, or manipulations that render the research results invalid are confirmed, in accordance with the  COPE Retraction Guidelines.

5. Appeals Policy and Procedure

If authors disagree with an editorial decision to reject a manuscript, they may submit an appeal within 14 days of the decision. Requirements for an appeal:

  • a detailed justification of the reasons for challenging the decision;
  • specific responses to each point raised by the editor or reviewers;
  • evidence of an editorial or technical error;
  • any additional information the authors wish the Board to consider.

Handling of Appeals: The Editor-in-Chief considers appeals only for manuscripts rejected after peer review. To ensure objectivity, the Editorial Board may involve an independent board member (ombudsman) who was not involved in the initial review.

  • Timeline: A decision on the appeal is provided within six weeks of receipt.
  • Finality: The decision on the appeal is final; repeated appeals for the same manuscript will not be considered.