Procedure for handling complaints

Procedure for handling complaints

PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING COMPLAINTS CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF PUBLICATION ETHICS

The Editorial Board of the scientific journal “Forestry and Forest Melioration” strives to ensure that the journal meets the highest standards of academic integrity. We adhere to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and provide a transparent procedure for handling complaints, appeals, and potential ethical violations both before and after publication.

This procedure outlines the steps for submitting, reviewing, and resolving complaints related to alleged violations of academic integrity, publication ethics, or editorial processes in Forestry and Forest Melioration. 

Complaint Handling Procedure by the Editorial Board

  1. Submission of a Complaint

Complaints may be submitted by:

  • an author (or a group of authors);
  • a reviewer;
  • a member of the editorial board;
  • a reader or any other individual who identifies a potential ethical violation.

Complaints may concern:

  • plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data falsification or fabrication;
  • authorship violations (unjustified inclusion or exclusion of authors);
  • undeclared conflicts of interest;
  • unethical peer review practices;
  • unauthorized use of another author’s materials;
  • violations of the article acceptance/rejection procedure;
  • inappropriate conduct by editorial board members or reviewers.

A complaint must be submitted in written form (via email to the editorial office) and should include:

  • the full name of the complainant (anonymous submissions are accepted only if supported by sufficient evidence);
  • a clear description of the complaint, circumstances, and supporting evidence (links, copies of documents, etc.);
  • contact information for feedback.
  1. Preliminary Review
  • The complaint is registered by the Executive Editor of the Editorial Board.
  • The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Board conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the complaint falls within the scope of academic integrity and publication ethics and whether it contains sufficient grounds for consideration.
  • If the information provided is insufficient, the complainant may be asked to submit additional materials.
  • If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it is referred to an authorized representative of the Editorial Board.
  • The preliminary review period is up to 5 working days. The complainant is notified of the registration of the complaint or of a refusal to proceed with its consideration.
  1. Expert Evaluation
  • The complaint is submitted for consideration by the Editorial Board.
  • The Editorial Board evaluates:
    • the nature of the violation (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data falsification, duplicate publication, improper authorship, violations of the peer review process, etc.);
    • the scope and consequences of the violation;
    • the available evidence.
  • Independent experts may be involved if necessary.
  • All complaint materials are reviewed confidentially and impartially. Information is not disclosed, except where necessary for an objective investigation.
  • The review period is up to 30 working days.
  1. Decision-Making

The Editorial Board may adopt one of the following decisions:

  • to reject the complaint (if it is unfounded or not supported by evidence);
  • to issue remarks to the author(s) and require correction of errors;
  • to reject the manuscript (if the violation is identified during the review process);
  • to retract a published article (with an official retraction notice issued accordingly);
  • to notify the author’s affiliated institution or employer about the identified violations;
  • to impose sanctions, including a temporary ban on future submissions to the journal for a specified period.
  1. Notification of the Parties
  • The author(s) and the complainant receive a written notification of the outcome of the review.
  • In the event of a retraction, a notice stating the reasons is published in the next issue of the journal and on the journal’s website (see Retraction Policy).
  1. Appeals
  • The author or the complainant has the right to appeal the decision by submitting an appeal within 10 working days of receiving the decision.
  • The appeal is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by members of the Editorial Board or external experts. The review period is up to 10 working days.
  • A final decision is made following the results of the reconsideration.
  1. Final Provisions

The Editorial Board reserves the right to update and improve this Procedure in accordance with international standards of publication ethics and recommendations of leading scientific organizations.

All participants in the publishing process are required to adhere to the principles of academic integrity and publication ethics.