Consideration of appeals

 

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This Procedure establishes the process for receiving, registering, reviewing, and resolving submissions filed by authors, reviewers, readers, editorial board members, or other interested parties regarding the activities of the scientific journal, the quality of publications, the peer-review process, ethical issues, or any other aspects of editorial policy.

2. TYPES OF SUBMISSIONS

Submissions may concern:

  • technical issues (website access, incorrect information);

  • the editorial process (submission, review timelines, communication);

  • the quality of peer review or suspected bias;

  • academic misconduct (plagiarism, duplication, data falsification);

  • violations of ethical principles or international standards (COPE, DOAJ, etc.);

  • requests for changes to authorship or corrections to an article;

  • any other matters requiring editorial response.

3. CHANNELS FOR SUBMISSION

3.1 Submissions may be sent via:

  • the official journal email address;

  • the feedback form on the journal’s website;

  • a written letter to the publisher's postal address.

3.2 Anonymous submissions are reviewed if they contain sufficient facts and evidence.

4. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF REVIEW

4.1 Confidentiality – personal data of involved parties are not disclosed.

4.2 Impartiality – submissions are reviewed by an independent person or committee.

4.3 Timeliness – the applicant receives a response within established timeframes.

4.4 Transparency – all decisions are documented and archived.

4.5 Ethical compliance – COPE principles and the journal’s editorial standards apply.

5. PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION AND REGISTRATION

5.1 The applicant submits a request in any format, indicating:

  • name (optional),

  • contact details,

  • essence of the issue,

  • documents or evidence (if available).

5.2 The Managing Editor:

  • registers the submission in the journal log,

  • assigns a registration number,

  • sends the applicant a confirmation of receipt (within 3 working days).

6. REVIEW OF THE SUBMISSION

6.1 Preliminary Analysis

6.1.1 The Managing Editor checks:

  • the content of the submission,

  • availability of required information,

  • relevance to the journal’s scope.

6.1.2 If information is insufficient, a clarification request is sent to the applicant.

6.2 Assignment for Responsible Review

Depending on the category of the submission, it is forwarded to:

  • the Editor-in-Chief,

  • a member of the Editorial Board,

  • the technical administrator,

  • the legal department,

  • the institution’s management.

6.3 Review Timeframes

6.3.1 General submissions — up to 10 working days.

6.3.2 Complex matters requiring internal investigation — up to 30 working days.

6.3.3 Serious cases (academic misconduct, plagiarism) — up to 60 days or longer, if additional expert evaluation is needed.

6.4 Internal Investigation

In cases involving severe violations, a specialized committee of 3–5 editorial board members or employees of the Ukrainian Science Hub publishing house is formed. The committee may:

  • conduct comparative text analysis,

  • request explanations from the involved parties,

  • consult independent experts,

  • use plagiarism-detection tools.

7. DECISION-MAKING

7.1 The editorial office or specialized committee may decide to:

  • provide clarification to the applicant;

  • correct or update information on the website;

  • correct technical errors in the article (erratum);

  • publish a correction, retraction notice, or editorial note;

  • expand or repeat the peer-review process;

  • reject the article;

  • retract a published article;

  • take action against the violator (author, reviewer, editor);

  • forward materials to relevant institutions.

7.2 All decisions are recorded in the submissions log.

8. NOTIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT

8.1 After a decision is made, the applicant receives an official response containing:

  • a summary of the submission,

  • a description of the actions taken,

  • the final decision and its justification,

  • further possible steps (if applicable).

8.2 The response may be sent by email or another preferred method.

9. APPEAL PROCESS

9.1 The applicant may file a repeated submission or appeal if:

  • new evidence emerges,

  • the decision appears incomplete or biased.

9.2 The appeal is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a specialized committee.
A final decision is provided within 30 days.

10. DOCUMENT RETENTION

All materials related to the review of submissions are stored for at least 3 years, including:

  • the submission,

  • internal notes,

  • investigation results,

  • decisions made,

  • correspondence.

11. PRIVACY POLICY

11.1 Personal data are not shared with third parties.

11.2 Reviewer anonymity is fully protected.

11.3 Information on internal decisions may be disclosed only in the form of official statements, provided it does not harm any involved party.

12. FINAL PROVISIONS

12.1 This Procedure enters into force upon approval and remains valid until amended or revoked.

12.2 All editorial staff, editorial board members, and invited reviewers must familiarize themselves with this Procedure and comply with its provisions.

12.3 In the event of changes in legislation, international academic integrity standards (COPE, DOAJ, ICMJE, etc.), or editorial policy, the Managing Editor initiates a review and update of this Procedure.

12.4 All amendments to the Procedure are approved by a separate order or editorial decision and communicated to all stakeholders by website publication or direct notification.

12.5 If any provisions of this Procedure become inconsistent with current legislation or standards, they must be automatically updated without invalidating the Procedure as a whole.