Management and Business
e-ISSN 3041-2420 | UDC 33
|
EN
Submit an article →
Complaints and Appeals Policy
The Editorial Office of Management and Business is committed to considering complaints and appeals relating to the editorial process, peer review, publication ethics and the content of published materials promptly, objectively and constructively.
All submissions are considered in accordance with their nature, complexity and the evidence provided. During its assessment, the Editorial Office follows the journal’s policies and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). A person whose actions or decisions are the subject of a complaint or appeal does not participate in its consideration.
 
Submission of Complaints
Complaints, comments and reports of possible misconduct must be sent to the journal’s official email address: info@emsesd.com.ua.
A complaint may concern:
  • failure to follow the established procedure for submission, peer review or editorial decision-making;
  • an unjustified delay in the consideration of a manuscript;
  • biased, inappropriate or discriminatory treatment;
  • a possible conflict of interest involving an editor, reviewer or another participant in the publication process;
  • a breach of manuscript or peer review confidentiality;
  • inappropriate conduct by an author, reviewer, editor or member of the Editorial Board;
  • plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification;
  • breaches of authorship, copyright or appropriate citation requirements;
  • unjustified pressure to include citations;
  • errors, unreliable data or other problems in a published article;
  • inconsistency between the actions of the Editorial Office and the journal’s published policies.
A complaint must be concise, specific and substantiated. It should include:
  • the complainant’s name and contact details, except where an anonymous report is submitted;
  • the title and registration number of the manuscript or the DOI of the published article, where the complaint relates to a specific item;
  • a clear description of the circumstances and the nature of the possible violation;
  • the date or period during which the relevant event occurred;
  • any available evidence, documents, links, correspondence or other materials supporting the allegations;
  • the expected means of resolving the matter, where appropriate.
Anonymous reports may be considered where they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. The absence of the complainant’s identifying or contact details may limit the Editorial Office’s ability to request further clarification and communicate the outcome of the investigation.
 
Procedure for Considering Complaints
The Editorial Office normally acknowledges receipt of a complaint within five working days.
After receiving a complaint, the Editorial Office:
  1. 1. Registers the complaint and conducts a preliminary assessment of its content.
  2. 2. Determines whether the matter falls within the journal’s remit.
  3. 3. Reviews the materials provided and the relevant editorial records.
  4. 4. Where necessary, requests further explanations from the complainant, author, reviewer, editor or another party.
  5. 5. Assigns the matter to a person who has no conflict of interest.
  6. 6. Where required, involves an independent member of the Editorial Board, an external expert or a representative of the publisher.
  7. 7. Documents the course of the investigation and the decision reached.
Complaints concerning the conduct of a reviewer or editor are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor. Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it is considered by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, an independent member of the Editorial Board or an authorised representative of the publisher. The person against whom the complaint has been made may provide an explanation but does not participate in the decision-making process.
The Editorial Office aims to provide a response within thirty working days of receiving sufficient materials to consider the matter. Where the case requires additional expert assessment, referral to an institution or examination of a substantial volume of information, the period may be extended. In such circumstances, the complainant is informed of the delay and the reasons for extending the consideration period.
All parties must maintain confidentiality throughout the investigation. Information is disclosed only to those persons whose involvement is necessary for the objective consideration of the matter.
Following its investigation, the Editorial Office may:
  • determine that the complaint is unsubstantiated and uphold the previous decision;
  • provide an explanation or correct a procedural error;
  • replace the editor or reviewer;
  • arrange additional or repeated independent peer review;
  • reconsider the editorial decision;
  • refer the matter to the institution of the author, reviewer or another person for an appropriate investigation;
  • publish a correction, addendum, expression of concern or retraction notice;
  • take other measures appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the established violation.
Where a matter requires the authority of an institution, funding organisation or another competent body, the Editorial Office may forward the available materials to that body. The journal nevertheless retains responsibility for making any necessary corrections to the published scholarly record.
Complaints are assessed on their substance and the evidence provided. Submissions containing only personal attacks, speculation or unsupported allegations and providing no verifiable information may be dismissed without further consideration. Where a complaint is expressed in an offensive, threatening or discriminatory manner, the Editorial Office may limit further correspondence. Nevertheless, specific and documented allegations of possible misconduct are assessed regardless of the manner in which they are expressed.
The submission of a complaint in good faith must not result in retaliation against the complainant, biased treatment of their manuscripts or restrictions on their right to cooperate with the journal in the future.
 
Submission of Appeals
Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision to reject a manuscript or another outcome of its consideration.
An appeal may be submitted where the author believes that the decision resulted from:
  • a material factual error in a review report or editorial assessment;
  • a misunderstanding of the research methodology, findings or conclusions;
  • failure to consider important evidence presented in the manuscript;
  • a breach of the established peer review procedure;
  • a conflict of interest, bias or inappropriate conduct by an editor or reviewer;
  • an editorial decision that is inconsistent with the content of the review reports or the journal’s published policies.
An author’s disagreement with critical comments or an unfavourable decision does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.
An appeal must be sent to info@emsesd.com.ua within thirty calendar days of receipt of the editorial decision.
The appeal must include:
  • the title and registration number of the manuscript;
  • the date on which the decision was received;
  • the decision being appealed;
  • the specific provisions of the review report or editorial assessment with which the author disagrees;
  • a reasoned explanation of the possible factual, scientific or procedural errors;
  • documents or other evidence supporting the author’s position.
An appeal must not consist solely of a restatement of the manuscript’s content or a general request to reconsider the decision. The author must clearly explain the nature of the alleged error or procedural breach.
 
Consideration of Appeals
An appeal is considered by an editor who did not participate in making the original decision and who has no conflict of interest. Where necessary, the manuscript may be referred to an independent member of the Editorial Board or an external expert.
During the consideration of an appeal, the following are assessed:
  • the validity of the arguments presented by the author;
  • the consistency of the original decision with the review reports and editorial policy;
  • the existence of any factual or procedural error;
  • any possible conflict of interest;
  • the need for additional independent assessment.
Submission of an appeal does not automatically overturn the previous decision and does not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript.
Following consideration of the appeal, the Editorial Office may:
  • uphold the original decision;
  • overturn the previous decision and resume consideration of the manuscript;
  • refer the manuscript for additional independent peer review;
  • invite the author to submit a revised version;
  • make another reasoned editorial decision.
The outcome of the appeal is communicated to the author in writing and accompanied by a brief explanation. The Editorial Office aims to consider an appeal within thirty working days, although this period may be extended where independent experts need to be involved.
As a general rule, only one appeal is considered in relation to a single editorial decision. The decision reached following the appeal is final within the journal’s internal editorial procedure. This does not restrict the author’s right to submit a separate complaint where they have evidence of a breach of publication ethics, a conflict of interest or inappropriate conduct during the consideration of the appeal.