Procedure for Handling Complaints Regarding Violations of Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics

The review of complaints is conducted in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine, recommendations of international organizations in the field of publication ethics (specifically COPE — Committee on Publication Ethics), and the internal regulatory documents of scientific publications.

The purpose of the complaint review process is to ensure compliance with the principles of scientific ethics, objectivity, transparency, fairness, and adherence to international standards of publication practice.

1. Scope of the Procedure

This procedure applies to cases involving:

• Detection of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or unauthorized text processing/borrowing;

• Falsification or fabrication of data;

• Significant errors that render research results unreliable;

• Redundant (duplicate) publication in another journal without proper notification;

• Copyright infringement;

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest;

• Establishing facts of unethical authorship;

• Publication of results containing substantial scientific or technical errors that distort conclusions;

• Violations of the peer-review process;

• Unethical behavior by authors, reviewers, or Editorial Board members;

• Concealment of the use of Artificial Intelligence in violation of the journal's policies.

2. Complaint Submission Procedure

2.1. Complaints must be submitted via email to the official editorial address:pgr-ncpgru@ukr.net

2.2. The complaint must include:

• Full name, affiliation (if applicable), and contact details of the complainant;

• A link to the publication/manuscript or a description of the material the complaint concerns;

• The essence of the violation;

• Justification with reference to evidence (if possible — files, screenshots, or links).

The Editorial Office does not consider anonymous submissions. However, the Editorial Office may ensure the confidentiality of the complainant (their data will not be disclosed to other parties without necessity or legal grounds).

2.3. Preliminary Review

The Editorial Office registers the complaint and appoints a person responsible for its preliminary analysis. A preliminary assessment is conducted within five working days to determine:

• Whether the issue falls within the journal's competence;

• Whether the complaint contains the minimum necessary data indicating a potential violation.

The complainant is sent a notification regarding the registration of the complaint or a refusal to proceed, accompanied by a brief explanation of the reasons (e.g., lack of subject matter, insufficient evidence, etc.).

2.4. Substantive Review

To review the complaint, a commission of three individuals is established (Editorial Board members and/or external experts) who have no conflict of interest regarding the parties or the material involved. Individuals directly implicated in the complaint are prohibited from participating in the review.

2.5. The Commission has the right to:

• Request additional materials and explanations from the complainant and other parties;

• Engage independent external experts;

• Conduct consultations necessary to clarify the circumstances.

The review period is up to 20 calendar days from the date of registration. In complex cases, this may be extended by no more than 15 calendar days, with the complainant notified of the reasons for the extension.

2.6. Decisions and Actions

Based on the results of the review, the commission adopts one of the following decisions:

• Reject the complaint as unsubstantiated;

• Identify a remediable violation and propose corrective actions (e.g., correction, clarification, or erratum);

• Recognize the violation as substantial and apply appropriate measures.

Measures in case of substantial violations may include:

• Rejection of the manuscript;

• Publication of a correction or a Statement of Concern (if necessary);

• Retraction of the published article in accordance with the journal’s policy;

• Temporary restriction on future submissions for a specified period;

• Notification of the author's institution (provided there are sufficient grounds and in compliance with confidentiality and legal requirements).

The decision is documented in the minutes of the Academic Integrity Commission meeting.

2.7. Protection of Rights and Confidentiality

All parties have the right to:

• Be informed of the commencement of the review (within limits that do not breach confidentiality);

• Provide explanations and evidence;

• Receive notification of the review results.

The Editorial Office ensures the confidentiality of proceeding materials and participants' personal data within the framework of current legislation and procedural necessity.

3. Appeals

3.1. The commission’s decision may be appealed within 14 calendar days by submitting an appeal to the official editorial email address.

3.2. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief with the involvement (or based on the conclusion) of an editor or Editorial Board member who did not participate in the initial review. The appeal process takes up to 10 working days.

3.3. Following the appeal, the initial decision may be upheld or a re-examination may be ordered (including the involvement of an additional independent expert). The decision on the appeal is final.

Procedural Principles

The complaint review and retraction process is conducted in accordance with the following principles:

• Objectivity – decisions regarding article retractions are made solely on the basis of verified facts, documented evidence, and established evaluation criteria, free from the influence of subjective factors, personal interests, or the authors' professional status.

• Transparency – all retraction notices are made public and remain easily accessible to the scientific community.

• Accountability – authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and quality of the submitted research results.

• Confidentiality – ensures that information related to the retraction process is not disclosed to third parties not involved in the proceedings. This includes the protection of personal data and restricted institutional information.

• Compliance with COPE Recommendations – strict adherence to the ethical guidelines and flowcharts provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics._