Procedure for Handling Complaints

Editorial Policy

To uphold the principles of academic integrity, the Editorial Board operates in strict accordance with internationally recognized ethical standards, as well as the institutional regulations on academic integrity established at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal undergo mandatory screening for academic misconduct, including plagiarism and self-plagiarism, at the initial stage of editorial evaluation.

The Journal utilizes the licensed international plagiarism detection system StrikePlagiarism.com, developed by Plagiat.pl. This system supports more than 30 languages, integrates with platforms such as OJS, Moodle, and Canvas, complies with GDPR requirements, and is capable of detecting not only direct textual overlap but also translated content and AI-generated text. The analysis generates a comprehensive interactive report, including similarity indices, identified sources, and citation accuracy.

If instances of improper attribution or unacceptable reuse of previously published material are identified, authors will be requested to revise the manuscript, with the possibility of resubmission. However, in cases involving deliberate text manipulation, attempts to conceal plagiarism, or other serious violations of publication ethics, the manuscript will be rejected without further consideration.

Complaints and Appeals

The Journal considers all complaints and appeals in accordance with the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Review Procedure

When a complaint or appeal regarding an editorial decision is submitted, the following procedure is applied:

  • The initial assessment is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the handling editor directly involved in the editorial process.

  • If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint two members of the Editorial Board with relevant experience to assist in evaluating the case, clarifying the circumstances described, and ensuring proper adherence to the Journal’s editorial policies and ethical standards.

Guiding Principles

In handling complaints and appeals, the Journal adheres to the following principles:

  • mutual respect among all participants in the editorial process and the presumption of good faith unless proven otherwise;

  • the right of all parties to present arguments and supporting evidence;

  • proper notification of all stakeholders whose rights or interests may be affected;

  • commitment to resolving disputes through constructive dialogue, mutual understanding, and, where possible, compromise.

Appeals Concerning Scientific Quality

In cases where authors contest editorial decisions (e.g., rejection following peer review), the appeal must include a detailed, point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments.

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the arguments provided by both authors and reviewers and may issue one of the following decisions:

  • reject the appeal as unsubstantiated;

  • uphold the appeal and revise the initial decision.

The complainant will be informed of the outcome along with a reasoned explanation. Decisions on appeals are considered final, and priority is given to new submissions rather than repeated appeals.

Complaints Regarding Editorial Procedures

Complaints related to editorial processes (e.g., review timelines or procedural issues) are investigated by the Editor-in-Chief. The complainant will receive a formal response, and the findings may be used to improve editorial workflows and procedures.

Ethical Complaints

Complaints concerning publication ethics (e.g., misconduct by authors or reviewers) are addressed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Secretary in accordance with internationally recognized standards, including the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the European Association of Science Editors (EASE).

Final Decision

All decisions regarding complaints and appeals are final and not subject to further reconsideration. The Editorial Office does not engage in additional correspondence once a final decision has been communicated.