This policy explains how authors, reviewers and readers can raise concerns about editorial decisions, conduct or publication ethics. An appeal asks for reconsideration of a decision; a complaint concerns conduct, procedure or integrity. The same submission may raise both issues, which should be distinguished during assessment. English is the reference version; Uzbek and Russian versions express the same policy.

The policy expands the journal’s existing ethics statement. VERIFY notes identify operational arrangements requiring editorial confirmation. No fixed acknowledgement, response or resolution deadline, independent ombudsperson or standing appeals panel is claimed. The stages below describe the required approach, not evidence that a particular case-management system is already operating.

Contents

1. Appeal against an Editorial Decision
2. Complaint about a Reviewer
3. Complaint about an Editor
4. Publication Ethics Complaint
5. Plagiarism Allegation
6. Authorship Dispute
7. Conflicts of Interest in Complaint Handling
8. Where and How to Submit a Complaint or Appeal
9. Stages of Review
10. When Independent Review Is Needed
11. Final Decision and Further Information

1. Appeal against an Editorial Decision

Identify the manuscript, decision and specific grounds for reconsideration. Explain any material factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, relevant bias or evidence that was overlooked. A point-by-point response supported by the manuscript, decision letter and relevant information is more useful than a general request for a different outcome.

Disagreement with scientific judgement alone does not establish an error. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance, another round of peer review or a change of editor. Possible outcomes include upholding the decision or reconsidering the manuscript or assessment where the grounds justify it. New work or a substantially different manuscript should not be presented as proof that the original decision was necessarily wrong.

2. Complaint about a Reviewer

A complaint may concern abusive or discriminatory language, an undisclosed conflict, misuse of confidential material, coercive citation requests or another identifiable breach of reviewing standards. Quote or identify the relevant comments and explain the concern. Separate a disagreement about the science from an allegation about conduct.

Direct the complaint to the journal rather than seeking to identify or contact an anonymous reviewer. Confidential identities and reports should be shared only as necessary for fair assessment. The assessment should consider whether the conduct affected the review’s usefulness or the editorial decision; neither reviewer replacement nor disciplinary action is automatic.

3. Complaint about an Editor

Describe the editor’s action or omission, the affected manuscript or article, and the supporting correspondence. Concerns may involve bias, a conflict of interest, confidentiality, inconsistent procedure or inappropriate conduct. State clearly if the complaint concerns the person who would normally receive or decide it.

The person whose conduct is challenged must not be the sole decision-maker on that complaint. They may be asked for a response, but a response is not an independent assessment. The journal should arrange consideration by an appropriately authorised person without the relevant conflict; the available route must be confirmed rather than assumed.

VERIFY C1 — Confirm who receives complaints about an editor or publisher, who may appoint a different decision-maker, and the independent escalation address. No named substitute, external panel or ombudsperson has been verified.

4. Publication Ethics Complaint

Authors, reviewers and readers may report concerns about the integrity of submitted or published work, including data or image manipulation, unethical research, redundant publication or interference with the publication process. Identify the article or submission and explain what can be checked. Distinguish observations from assumptions about intent.

A credible concern should be assessed on its evidence rather than the complainant’s seniority or relationship with the journal. Anonymous or incomplete information may limit clarification, but is not itself proof that a concern is invalid. No allegation establishes misconduct without assessment. Where the published record needs action, the Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy applies.

5. Plagiarism Allegation

Provide the suspected source, the journal article or manuscript, and the matching passages, figures, data or ideas, with page numbers, links or other locators where possible. Explain any apparent absence of attribution or permission. A comparison that can be checked is preferable to an unsupported accusation.

A similarity percentage or automated detection result alone does not prove plagiarism. Assessment should consider the nature and extent of overlap, quotation and citation, prior publication and any relevant explanation. Do not obtain or circulate confidential files without authority. Refer to the journal’s Plagiarism Policy; a complaint does not imply automatic rejection or retraction.

6. Authorship Dispute

Explain the disputed contribution, author inclusion, exclusion or order and supply relevant contribution records and correspondence. The Authorship and Contributorship Policy sets out the information and consent needed for a change. No person’s consent should be fabricated, and changing a byline silently is not an acceptable response to a dispute.

The journal should assess its publication record and procedure, but is not an employment tribunal or the investigator of every institutional disagreement. Institutional clarification may be needed where contribution evidence is disputed. A disagreement over authorship alone does not justify retracting otherwise reliable findings. A person being added or removed must not be excluded from consideration merely because they are no longer on the proposed list.

7. Conflicts of Interest in Complaint Handling

Complainants, respondents, advisers and decision-makers should disclose relationships relevant to the case. These may include involvement in the original decision, close collaboration, personal disputes, financial interests or supervisory relationships. A conflict should be assessed for its effect on impartiality; disclosure is not itself a finding of wrongdoing.

An original editor may explain the decision, but a complaint challenging that editor’s conduct requires scrutiny beyond their own judgement. Anyone with a material conflict should step aside from deciding the complaint. Confidential case information should be limited to those who need it, while allowing affected people a fair opportunity to respond. Confidentiality must not be presented as an absolute guarantee of anonymity.

8. Where and How to Submit a Complaint or Appeal

Send a written complaint or appeal to admin@srt-journal.uz, the address already identified for ethical concerns in the journal’s public ethics statement. Suggested subject: “Complaint” or “Editorial appeal”, followed by the manuscript reference or article DOI/title. Current general contact information is available on the Contact page.

Include the issue, relevant dates and correspondence, supporting evidence, the outcome requested and a contact address for a reply if you wish to receive one. If the complaint involves the recipient, state this explicitly and request referral to an unconflicted person. Send only relevant material you are entitled to share; do not send unnecessary personal information.

VERIFY C2 — The address is publicly listed, but delivery, monitoring, the officer responsible for receiving complaints and a separate independent channel have not been verified. Confirm these arrangements. This page does not promise acknowledgement or resolution within a stated number of days.

9. Stages of Review

The following stages provide a transparent framework. The extent of assessment should fit the issue and evidence; not every case requires external expertise or an institutional investigation.

1. Receipt and clarification: record the concern and, where contact is possible, acknowledge it or request information needed to identify the issue. Do not treat silence as acceptance of the complaint.
2. Classification and scope: distinguish an appeal on scientific judgement from a conduct or ethics complaint, identify the affected record and determine which issues the journal can assess.
3. Conflict screening and allocation: identify the person responsible for assessment and address relevant conflicts before reaching a decision on the merits.
4. Evidence and responses: examine the supplied material, seek a response from the affected person or author group where appropriate, and obtain additional expertise or institutional clarification when needed. Do not present an allegation as a proven fact.
5. Assessment and decision: evaluate the information, choose a proportionate outcome, and document the reasons and any remaining limitations.
6. Communication and follow-up: explain the outcome to the relevant parties as confidentiality permits, identify any required action and ensure that an authorised correction or notice follows the appropriate publication policy.

VERIFY C3 — Confirm how cases and correspondence are recorded, who performs each stage, how delays are communicated and how records are retained. No fixed service standard, retention period or automated tracking workflow has been verified. Time estimates, if supplied for a case, should reflect its circumstances rather than an invented universal deadline.

10. When Independent Review Is Needed

Independent consideration is needed when the complaint challenges the conduct of the usual decision-maker or when a material conflict would undermine confidence in the outcome. An appeal alleging a serious procedural problem or bias should, where feasible, be considered by someone not responsible for the original disputed decision. Independence concerns the person’s actual role and relationships, not merely a different job title.

A suitably qualified, unconflicted editor or adviser may assist; this does not establish that the journal has a permanent external committee. If an impartial route cannot be arranged internally, the limitation should be explained and an appropriate alternative sought. A conflicted self-review must not be described as independent review. Confidential information should not be shared with an outside person without an appropriate basis.

VERIFY C4 — Confirm the available independent reviewer or escalation arrangement and its authority before promising it to complainants. No external review body, institutional cooperation agreement or guaranteed independent appeal stage is claimed.

11. Final Decision and Further Information

The final outcome should be issued in writing by the authorised, unconflicted decision-maker and identify the issue considered, the main reasons, the action to be taken and whether any further internal review is available. Depending on the evidence, the outcome may uphold or reconsider an editorial decision, identify a procedural improvement, refer unresolved issues for appropriate clarification or lead to a correction or other publication notice.

Neither acceptance of a complaint nor rejection of it should be assumed from the absence of a reply. An appeal does not automatically suspend an existing notice or reverse a decision. Closing a case does not make substantial new evidence irrelevant: a later concern should explain what is new rather than merely repeat arguments already considered. Do not promise further escalation to COPE or another body as though that organisation necessarily has jurisdiction over the journal.

VERIFY C5 — Confirm who may issue the final decision and any actual further internal-review route or limits. No fixed appeal deadline, maximum number of appeals, guaranteed review period or named final adjudicator is asserted.

Related Journal Policies

Read this policy together with the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, the Authorship and Contributorship Policy and the Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

Supporting Editorial Guidance

The journal’s published ethics statement is the journal-specific basis. General editorial-independence guidance is a reference for fair decision-making, not evidence that unverified appointments or systems are already in place.

• ICMJE — Journal Owners and Editorial Freedom