The editorial office of the journal ensures a transparent, objective, and fair procedure for reviewing complaints related to possible violations of academic integrity and publication ethics.

This procedure defines the process for reviewing complaints concerning violations of ethical principles by authors, reviewers, or members of the editorial board of the journal. It applies to cases of plagiarism, improper borrowing of materials, conflicts of interest, data manipulation, and other violations of academic integrity.

1. Submission of a Complaint

Complaints regarding possible violations (plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, duplicate publications, copyright infringement, conflicts of interest) are submitted to the editorial office electronically via the official e-mail address of the journal.

The complaint must contain a description of the violation and, if possible, relevant evidence. Anonymous complaints are not considered.

The complaint must include:

• contact details of the applicant;
• a link to the publication or material under consideration;
• a detailed description of the violation with references to supporting evidence.

2. Preliminary Review

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the editorial board carries out an initial assessment of the validity of the complaint and decides on its further consideration.

Within 5 working days, the following is checked:

• whether the complaint corresponds to the journal’s scope;
• whether there are sufficient grounds for its consideration.

The applicant receives notification of the registration of the complaint or refusal to consider it.

3. Expert Examination

If necessary, the editorial office engages independent experts or reviewers for additional verification of the materials and facts presented in the complaint.

The commission has the right to:

• request additional materials and explanations;
• involve independent experts;
• conduct consultations with all interested parties.

The complaint review period does not exceed 30 calendar days.

4. Informing the Parties

The author(s) of the manuscript are informed about the content of the complaint and have the right to provide written explanations or reasoned objections.

5. Decision-Making

Based on the results of the review, the editorial board makes a decision that may include:

• rejection of the complaint as unfounded;
• recognition of the violation as minor with recommendations for corrections;
• recognition of the violation as substantial and application of appropriate measures.

6. Measures in Case of Serious Violations

In the event that serious violations are established, the following measures may be applied:

• refusal to publish the material;
• retraction of an already published article;
• prohibition on submitting materials for a specified period;
• notification of the violation to the institution with which the author is affiliated.

7. Confidentiality

All stages of complaint review are carried out in accordance with the principles of confidentiality and impartiality.

8. Protection of the Rights of the Parties

All parties to the conflict have the right to:

• receive complete information about the complaint review procedure;
• provide their explanations and evidence;
• appeal the commission’s decision.

9. Appeals

The decision of the commission may be appealed to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days.

The Editor-in-Chief considers the appeal within 10 working days. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.

10. Compliance with Ethical Standards

Members of the editorial board are required to follow the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), as well as the principles of the journal’s publication ethics.