Procedure for handling complaints regarding violations of academic integrity and publication ethics

Publishing House of the Institute of Agriculture of the Carpathian Region of NAAS

State Registration Certificate: DK № 7457 dated 28.09.2021
ROR ID: 0062xp078

  1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1.1. Purpose and Scope

The Publishing House of the Institute of Agriculture of the Carpathian Region of NAAS (hereinafter – the Publishing House) strives to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity and publication ethics in all its scientific publications. This procedure establishes a clear, fair, and transparent mechanism for handling complaints regarding possible violations of academic integrity and publication ethics.

This procedure applies to all scientific periodicals of the Publishing House:

  1. "Foothill and Mountain Agriculture and Animal Husbandry" (ISSN 0130-8521, e-ISSN 2786-5231)
  2. "Agroscience and Practice" (ISSN 2786-6939)

1.2. Legal and Ethical Foundations

This procedure has been developed in accordance with:

  • Law of Ukraine "On Education" (Article 42 "Academic Integrity")
  • Law of Ukraine "On Higher Education" (Article 42 "Academic Integrity")
  • Recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  • European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
  • Singapore Statement on Research Integrity
  • Policies and standards of international publishing associations

1.3. Definition of Key Terms

Academic integrity – a set of ethical principles and legally defined rules that participants in the educational process should follow during teaching, learning, and conducting scientific (creative) activities to ensure trust in learning outcomes and/or scientific (creative) achievements.

Publication ethics – a system of ethical principles and standards that regulate the behavior of all participants in the publishing process (authors, reviewers, editors, publishers).

Complaint – an official written appeal to the editorial board of the journal or the Publishing House reporting a possible violation of academic integrity or publication ethics.

Complainant – an individual or organization filing a complaint (may be anonymous under certain conditions).

Respondent – an author, reviewer, editor, or other person against whom a complaint has been filed.

 

  1. TYPES OF VIOLATIONS OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

2.1. Violations by Authors

Plagiarism

  • Publication (partially or fully) of scientific results obtained by others as one's own research results
  • Reproduction of texts, ideas, methods, data of other authors without proper citation
  • Self-plagiarism (auto-plagiarism) – use of one's own previously published texts without proper references

Fabrication

  • Inventing or falsifying data or research results
  • Presenting falsified, altered, or fabricated results

Falsification

  • Deliberate distortion or alteration of research data
  • Manipulation of research equipment, materials, or processes
  • Alteration or removal of data or results without scientific justification

Multiple (Duplicate) Publication

  • Submission of a manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals
  • Publication of the same research in different journals without proper disclosure
  • Publication of an article that substantially overlaps with a previously published work

Unacceptable Authorship Practices

  • Honorary authorship – inclusion of individuals who did not make a substantial contribution
  • Ghost authorship – non-inclusion of individuals who made a substantial contribution
  • Improper appropriation of authorship
  • Change in the order of authors without the consent of all co-authors

Concealment of Conflict of Interest

  • Failure to provide information about financial or personal relationships that may affect results
  • Concealment of research funding sources

Violation of Research Ethics Norms

  • Absence of ethics committee approval for research requiring it
  • Absence of informed consent from research participants
  • Violation of the rights and welfare of humans or animals in research

Improper Use of Artificial Intelligence

  • Use of generative AI to create scientific conclusions without disclosure
  • Listing AI as a co-author
  • Use of AI to create or modify images and data

2.2. Violations by Reviewers

  • Disclosure of confidential information from the manuscript being reviewed
  • Use of information from the manuscript before its publication for personal benefit
  • Biased reviewing due to personal or competitive motives
  • Failure to disclose conflict of interest
  • Delaying the review process without justified reasons

2.3. Violations by Editors

  • Bias in selecting manuscripts for publication
  • Disclosure of confidential information about authors or reviewers
  • Use of unpublished materials for personal benefit
  • Making decisions under the influence of conflict of interest
  • Ignoring justified complaints or delaying investigation
  1. WHO MAY FILE A COMPLAINT

3.1. Categories of Complainants

Complaints may be filed by:

  • Authors of publications – if they believe their rights have been violated
  • Reviewers – if they have identified violations during review
  • Readers – if they have identified signs of violations in published materials
  • Researchers – if they have identified use of their works without proper citation
  • Institutions – if they have identified violations by their employees
  • Editorial board – if it has identified signs of violations
  • Other journals or publishing houses – upon detection of multiple publications
  • Anonymous individuals – subject to providing sufficient evidence

3.2. Anonymous Complaints

The Publishing House accepts anonymous complaints if they:

  • Contain specific information about the violation
  • Are accompanied by evidence or the possibility of verification
  • Are not obviously unfounded or malicious

Note: Complaints with full disclosure of the complainant's identity are considered with priority.

  1. PROCEDURE FOR FILING A COMPLAINT

4.1. Form of Submission

A complaint must be submitted in written form by one of the following methods:

  • By email to: [editorial email]
  • By mail to the Publishing House address

4.2. Mandatory Elements of a Complaint

A complaint must contain:

  1. Identification of the publication or manuscript:
    • Article title
    • Author(s)
    • Journal name
    • Year, volume, issue (for published articles)
    • DOI (if available)
    • Or manuscript number in the submission system (for unpublished manuscripts)
  2. Description of the violation:
    • Clear description of the type of violation
    • Specific facts and circumstances
  3. Evidence:
    • References to sources confirming plagiarism
    • Reports from plagiarism detection software (if available)
    • Screenshots or copies of documents
    • References to other publications (in case of multiple publication)
    • Any other materials confirming the violation
  4. Complainant's contact information (optional for anonymous complaints):
    • Full name
    • Email
    • Affiliation (if available)
    • Phone (optional)
  5. Motivation:
    • Explanation of why the complainant considers this a violation
    • What actions the complainant expects from the editorial board

4.3. Languages of Submission

Complaints are accepted in:

  • Ukrainian (preferably)
  • English
  • Russian (will be translated into Ukrainian for review)

4.4. Complaint Template

COMPLAINT REGARDING VIOLATION OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

 

  1. PUBLICATION INFORMATION:

Article title: _________________________________

Author(s): _____________________________________

Journal: _______________________________________

Year, volume, issue: ___________________________

DOI: __________________________________________

 

  1. TYPE OF VIOLATION (check):

☐ Plagiarism

☐ Self-plagiarism

☐ Data fabrication

☐ Data falsification

☐ Multiple publication

☐ Authorship violation

☐ Conflict of interest (undisclosed)

☐ Research ethics violation

☐ Other: ___________________________

 

  1. DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION:

[Detailed description of violation]

 

  1. EVIDENCE:

[List of evidence and references]

 

  1. EXPECTED ACTIONS:

☐ Investigation

☐ Correction of publication

☐ Retraction of publication

☐ Other: ___________________________

 

  1. COMPLAINANT'S CONTACT INFORMATION (optional):

Full name: _____________________________________

Email: ________________________________________

Affiliation: ____________________________________

 

Date: _________________________________________

Signature: _____________________________________

 

  1. COMPLAINT REVIEW PROCEDURE

5.1. Review Stages

STAGE 1: ACCEPTANCE AND REGISTRATION (1-3 days)

STAGE 2: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT (5-7 days)

STAGE 3: INVESTIGATION (up to 60 days)

STAGE 4: DECISION-MAKING (up to 14 days)

STAGE 5: IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISION AND REPORTING

5.2. STAGE 1: Acceptance and Registration of Complaint

Timeline: 1-3 business days

Responsible person: Executive Secretary of the respective journal's editorial board

Actions:

  1. Registration of complaint in the complaint log with assignment of a unique number
  2. Confirmation of receipt of complaint to the complainant (if contact details provided)
  3. Formation of a case file with all complaint materials
  4. Transfer of case to the journal's editor-in-chief

Acceptance criteria:

  • Complaint concerns a publication or manuscript in one of the Publishing House's journals
  • Sufficient information provided to identify the publication
  • Complaint contains a specific description of the violation
  • At least minimal evidence is available or verification is possible

Grounds for rejection at this stage:

  • Complaint does not concern the Publishing House's journals
  • Complaint is obviously unfounded or malicious
  • Publication or violation cannot be identified
  • Complaint concerns issues outside the scope of academic integrity (e.g., disagreement with scientific conclusions)

5.3. STAGE 2: Preliminary Assessment

Timeline: 5-7 business days

Responsible person: Journal editor-in-chief or designated editorial board member (in case of editor-in-chief's conflict of interest)

Actions:

  1. Verification of complaint validity:
    • Analysis of provided evidence
    • Preliminary assessment of violation severity
    • Determination of whether the complaint requires full investigation
  2. Complaint categorization:
    • Category A (critical): Serious violations requiring immediate investigation (plagiarism, fabrication, data falsification)
    • Category B (moderate): Violations requiring investigation (self-plagiarism, improper authorship, incomplete disclosure of conflict of interest)
    • Category C (minor): Technical violations or deficiencies (citation deficiencies that can be corrected)
  3. Determination of need for expert involvement:
    • Complexity of the issue
    • Need for specialized knowledge
    • Potential conflict of interest of editorial board members

Possible decisions at this stage:

  1. A) Rejection of complaint (if complaint proved unfounded):
  • Notification to complainant with justification
  • Case closure
  1. B) Referral for full investigation:
  • Formation of review committee
  • Development of investigation plan
  • Notification of all interested parties
  1. C) Quick resolution (for Category C):
  • Direct contact with author for correction
  • Monitoring of correction implementation
  • Case closure after deficiencies are remedied

5.4. STAGE 3: Investigation

Timeline: Up to 60 calendar days (may be extended by committee decision)

Responsible body: Committee for Review of Academic Integrity Complaints

5.4.1. Committee Formation

Committee composition (3-5 persons):

  • Journal editor-in-chief or deputy (committee chair)
  • 2-3 editorial board members (experts in the relevant field)
  • Independent expert on academic integrity or publication ethics (if needed)
  • Publishing House representative (if needed)

Requirements for committee members:

  • Absence of conflict of interest with all parties
  • Expert knowledge in the relevant field
  • Experience working with academic integrity issues

Committee member recusal: A committee member must declare self-recusal if:

  • Is a co-author of the respondent
  • Has family ties with any party
  • Has financial interest in the case
  • Has other personal interests that may affect objectivity

5.4.2. Investigation Process

  1. Collection of evidence and information:

Mandatory actions:

  • Detailed analysis of publication or manuscript
  • Plagiarism check using specialized software
  • Comparison with possible sources of borrowing
  • Analysis of data and methodology originality
  • Verification of ethical approvals (if needed)
  • Analysis of manuscript submission sequence (for multiple publication cases)

Additional actions (if needed):

  • Request for primary research data from author
  • Consultations with independent experts
  • Contact with respondent's institution
  • Verification in other journals (for multiple publication cases)
  • Analysis of laboratory notebooks, research protocols
  1. Notification of respondent and provision of right to defense:

The respondent must be notified of:

  • Fact of complaint and its essence
  • Evidence collected
  • Right to provide written explanations
  • Deadline for submitting explanations (usually 14 days)

Rights of respondent:

  • Familiarize themselves with complaint materials (except complainant's identity if complaint is anonymous)
  • Provide written and oral explanations
  • Submit additional evidence in their defense
  • Be heard by the committee
  • Appeal the decision
  1. Request for information from other parties:

If necessary, the committee may request information from:

  • Co-authors of the publication
  • Institution where research was conducted
  • Other journals where similar works may have been published
  • Research supervisor or academic advisor
  1. Committee meetings:

The committee conducts closed meetings to:

  • Review all collected materials
  • Hear respondent's explanations (at respondent's request)
  • Discuss evidence and arguments
  • Make interim decisions regarding need for additional checks

Documentation:

  • All meetings are recorded in minutes
  • All evidence and documents are preserved
  • All decisions and justifications are documented

5.4.3. Assessment of Violation Severity

The committee assesses:

Level of borrowing (for plagiarism):

  • Volume of borrowed text
  • Significance of borrowed parts
  • Whether key ideas or only formulations were borrowed
  • Whether this is a citation error or deliberate plagiarism

Impact on results (for fabrication/falsification):

  • How much the violation affects research conclusions
  • Whether this changes the scientific value of the work
  • Whether this is critical for reproducibility of results

Intent:

  • Whether the violation was deliberate
  • Whether this is a result of insufficient awareness
  • Whether the author attempted to conceal the violation

Scale:

  • Whether this is an isolated case
  • Whether there are signs of systematic violations

5.5. STAGE 4: Decision-Making

Timeline: Up to 14 calendar days after completion of investigation

Responsible body: Committee for Review of Complaints

5.5.1. Types of Decisions

The committee may make one of the following decisions:

  1. Complaint is unfounded:
  • No violation detected
  • Case closure
  • Notification of all parties
  1. Minor violation detected:
  • Requirement to make corrections (Corrigendum)
  • Public correction in the next issue
  • Warning to author
  • Without retraction of publication
  1. Serious violation detected:
  • Retraction of publication
  • Publication of retraction notice
  • Notification of author's institution
  • Possible temporary or permanent ban on publications in the Publishing House's journals
  • Notification of other journals and databases
  1. Expression of Concern:
  • If investigation cannot be completed fully
  • If there are serious doubts but insufficient evidence
  • Pending completion of external investigation by institution

5.5.2. Criteria for Publication Retraction

Publication must be retracted in cases of:

  • Proven plagiarism (over 25% borrowed text without proper citation)
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Serious violations of research ethics
  • Multiple publication without proper disclosure
  • Serious authorship violations (honorary authorship of key authors)

Publication may be retracted in cases of:

  • Plagiarism of 10-25% from important parts of work
  • Self-plagiarism with significant overlap with previous works
  • Incomplete disclosure of significant conflict of interest
  • Errors that make conclusions unreliable

5.5.3. Decision Justification

The committee's decision must contain:

  • Brief description of complaint and investigation process
  • Analysis of collected evidence
  • Conclusions regarding presence of violation
  • Legal and ethical justification for decision
  • Specific actions to be taken
  • Deadlines for action implementation

5.5.4. Decision Documentation

The committee's decision is documented in a protocol signed by all committee members.

Protocol structure:

  1. Case number and meeting date
  2. Committee composition
  3. Essence of complaint
  4. Brief description of investigation
  5. Committee conclusions
  6. Decision
  7. Committee members' signatures

Dissenting opinion: A committee member has the right to express a dissenting opinion, which is attached to the protocol.

5.6. STAGE 5: Implementation of Decision and Reporting

5.6.1. Notification of Parties

Timeline: Within 5 business days after decision-making

Who is notified:

  1. Complainant:
  • Committee decision (in general terms)
  • Decision justification
  • Actions to be taken
  1. Respondent (author):
  • Full committee decision
  • Detailed justification
  • Specific actions they must take
  • Right to appeal
  • Consequences of non-compliance with decision
  1. Co-authors:
  • Decision regarding publication
  • Their rights and obligations
  1. Author's institution:
  • Information about detected violation (for serious cases)
  • Copy of committee decision
  • Recommendations for further actions
  1. Other journals (if needed):
  • Information about multiple publication
  • Information about systematic violations

5.6.2. Implementation of Decision

For corrections (Corrigendum):

  1. Author prepares correction text
  2. Editorial board reviews and approves text
  3. Publication of correction in the next issue
  4. Update of electronic version of article with correction note
  5. Notification of indexing databases

For retraction:

  1. Preparation of retraction notice according to COPE template
  2. Publication of notice in journal
  3. Marking of electronic version of article as "RETRACTED"
  4. Notification of all indexing databases (CrossRef, Google Scholar, DOAJ, etc.)
  5. Update of DOI metadata
  6. Preservation of original text with clear retraction marking