Complaints and Appeals Policy

Geliotekhnika is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, respectful, timely, and academically independent publishing process for authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other participants.

Concerns may arise regarding editorial decisions, peer review, publication procedures, staff conduct, journal policies, or published content. This policy establishes procedures for submitting, reviewing, and resolving complaints and appeals.

All submissions are considered objectively and consistently in accordance with procedural fairness, journal policies, and COPE guidance. Submitting a complaint or appeal honestly and in good faith will not disadvantage the person making the submission.

Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to complaints and appeals concerning:

  • editorial procedures;

  • administration of peer review;

  • unreasonable delays in manuscript processing;

  • communication by editors or journal staff;

  • implementation of journal policies;

  • editorial independence;

  • competing interests;

  • confidentiality;

  • author fees and waiver administration;

  • technical or administrative processes;

  • conduct of editors, Editorial Board members, reviewers, or staff;

  • corrections, retractions, or other post-publication actions;

  • published content;

  • decisions concerning submitted manuscripts.

Allegations of plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, peer review manipulation, unethical research, improper authorship, and other research or publication misconduct are primarily handled under the journal’s Allegations of Misconduct Policy. A complaint may nevertheless be submitted about how such an allegation was handled.

Definitions

A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction concerning the journal’s policy, procedure, service, management, editorial practice, staff, Editorial Board, Publisher, or published content.

An appeal is a formal request by an author or authors for reconsideration of an editorial decision concerning a submitted manuscript.

An appeal challenges the basis or procedure of a decision. It is not a routine request for revision and does not automatically initiate a new round of peer review.

Who May Submit a Complaint or Appeal

A complaint may be submitted by:

  • an author;

  • a reviewer;

  • a reader;

  • an editor;

  • an Editorial Board member;

  • an institution;

  • a funding organization;

  • a research participant;

  • another person or organization directly affected by the matter.

An appeal concerning a manuscript should normally be submitted by the Corresponding Author with the knowledge and agreement of all co-authors. The journal may request confirmation that all authors support the appeal.

Fairness and Independence

A complaint or appeal is considered by an appropriately qualified person who, wherever reasonably possible, was not previously involved in the matter.

No person may investigate or decide a complaint or appeal where that person:

  • was directly involved in the disputed decision;

  • has a personal, financial, professional, or institutional competing interest;

  • participated in the conduct being challenged;

  • has another relationship that could compromise impartiality.

Where necessary, the matter is assigned to an independent editor, Editorial Board member, Publisher representative with independent oversight, or external adviser.

Good-Faith Submissions and Protection From Retaliation

The journal will not retaliate against a person who honestly and in good faith submits a complaint, appeal, or research integrity concern.

The submission will not affect impartial assessment of:

  • a current manuscript;

  • a future submission;

  • the complainant’s role as a reviewer;

  • legitimate academic interaction with the journal.

This protection does not apply to deliberate falsehoods, threats, harassment, discriminatory language, fabricated evidence, or knowingly malicious allegations.

Confidentiality

Complaints and appeals are handled with an appropriate degree of confidentiality. Information is normally shared only with persons who require access to assess, investigate, or resolve the matter.

The identity of a complainant, appellant, whistleblower, reviewer, or other participant is protected where reasonably possible. Complete confidentiality or anonymity cannot be guaranteed where:

  • disclosure is necessary for a fair investigation;

  • a person must be given an opportunity to respond;

  • institutional or law-enforcement involvement is required;

  • the integrity of the scholarly record must be protected;

  • disclosure is required by law.

Sensitive personal information unrelated to the matter will not be disclosed.

Timelines

The journal aims to acknowledge receipt of a complaint or appeal within five working days.

Where reasonably possible, the initial assessment will be completed and a substantive response provided within 30 calendar days.

Complex matters involving several parties, external experts, institutional investigation, legal issues, or extensive documentation may require additional time. Where a significant delay occurs, the person making the submission will be informed of the status where appropriate.

These timeframes are operational targets rather than absolute guarantees.

Submitting a Complaint

Complaints must be submitted in writing to ftikans@uzsci.net.

The preferred subject line is:

Complaint concerning [brief description or manuscript ID]

The complaint should include, where applicable:

  • the complainant’s full name and contact details;

  • manuscript title and identification number;

  • article title, DOI, or publication details;

  • a clear description of the issue;

  • relevant dates;

  • names or editorial roles of persons involved;

  • copies of relevant correspondence;

  • supporting documents or evidence;

  • the outcome or remedy requested;

  • disclosure of any relevant competing interest.

Anonymous complaints may be considered where they contain specific, credible, and verifiable information. Anonymity may limit the journal’s ability to investigate or communicate an outcome.

Preliminary Assessment of a Complaint

After receiving a complaint, the journal determines:

  • whether the matter falls within this policy;

  • whether sufficient information has been provided;

  • whether another journal policy should apply;

  • whether urgent action is necessary;

  • whether a competing interest exists;

  • who should review the matter;

  • whether additional information is required.

The journal may request clarification or supporting evidence before beginning a full investigation.

A complaint may be closed at the preliminary stage if it:

  • falls outside the journal’s responsibility;

  • contains no identifiable issue;

  • remains insufficiently supported after clarification was requested;

  • repeats a fully considered matter without new evidence;

  • consists solely of disagreement with legitimate academic judgment;

  • is abusive, threatening, knowingly false, or submitted for an improper purpose.

The complainant will normally be informed of the reason for closure.

Investigation of a Complaint

An investigation may involve:

  • reviewing manuscript records;

  • examining editorial correspondence;

  • assessing peer review reports;

  • comparing journal policies and procedures;

  • seeking statements from editors, reviewers, staff, authors, or other persons;

  • consulting an independent Editorial Board member;

  • obtaining technical, ethical, legal, or subject-specific advice;

  • requesting relevant documents from an institution or organization.

Any person whose conduct or decision is materially challenged must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The investigation focuses on available evidence and the integrity of the journal’s processes rather than punishment.

Complaints Concerning the Editor-in-Chief

A complaint directly concerning the Editor-in-Chief must not be investigated or decided solely by the Editor-in-Chief.

It is referred to one of the following:

  • an independent senior Editorial Board member;

  • the Publisher with independent oversight;

  • another qualified person not involved in the matter;

  • an external adviser, where appropriate.

The Editor-in-Chief may be invited to respond but must not control the outcome.

Complaints Concerning the Publisher

A complaint concerning I-EDU GROUP LLC or a person acting on its behalf is referred to a qualified person or body not directly involved in the disputed conduct.

Where appropriate, the matter may be reviewed by:

  • an independent Editorial Board representative;

  • a representative designated by the Founder;

  • an external adviser;

  • another competent institutional authority.

The Publisher must not determine the outcome of a complaint concerning its own conduct without independent oversight.

Outcome of a Complaint

Following an investigation, the journal normally provides a written response that:

  • summarizes the matter considered;

  • explains the procedure followed;

  • states the main findings;

  • identifies action taken or proposed;

  • provides reasons for the outcome;

  • explains whether further internal review is available.

Possible outcomes include:

  • no further action;

  • an explanation or clarification;

  • an apology;

  • correction of administrative or factual information;

  • improved communication;

  • revision of an internal procedure;

  • reassignment of a manuscript;

  • appointment of a new editor or reviewer;

  • additional independent assessment;

  • correction, Editorial Expression of Concern, or retraction;

  • referral to another journal policy;

  • notification of an institution or competent authority;

  • training for staff or Editorial Board members;

  • another proportionate corrective measure.

A finding that a complaint is not supported by sufficient evidence does not necessarily mean that it was submitted in bad faith.

Request for Further Review of a Complaint

If the complainant believes that the complaint was not handled fairly, one further internal review may be requested.

The request must:

  • be submitted within 30 calendar days of the journal’s response;

  • identify a significant factual or procedural error;

  • explain why the original handling was inadequate;

  • provide new supporting information where available.

Disagreement with the outcome alone is insufficient. Where possible, the review is conducted by a person not involved in the original investigation. Its outcome is normally final within the journal’s internal process.

Grounds for an Editorial Appeal

An appeal may be considered where authors provide specific evidence of:

  • a significant factual error in an editorial decision;

  • a material misunderstanding of the manuscript;

  • a significant procedural irregularity;

  • failure to follow the published Peer Review Policy;

  • an undisclosed competing interest that may have affected the decision;

  • demonstrable bias or inappropriate conduct;

  • reliance by a reviewer or editor on a clearly incorrect factual premise;

  • a substantial and relevant part of the original manuscript being overlooked;

  • material inconsistency between the decision and the reasons communicated to the authors.

The appeal must show that the alleged error or irregularity may have materially affected the editorial outcome.

Matters Normally Not Considered Grounds for Appeal

The following alone are normally insufficient:

  • disagreement with a reviewer’s or editor’s scientific judgment;

  • dissatisfaction with rejection;

  • a wish to submit an extensively redesigned study;

  • new experiments or analyses completed after the original decision;

  • new arguments not presented in the original manuscript;

  • preference for different reviewers;

  • disagreement with the journal’s aims and scope;

  • a request for reconsideration without identifying a factual, ethical, or procedural error;

  • the authors’ academic position, reputation, institution, or publication needs.

New results obtained after the decision should normally be incorporated into a substantially revised new submission rather than used as the basis for an appeal.

Submitting an Appeal

An appeal must be submitted in writing by the Corresponding Author to ftikans@uzsci.net.

The preferred subject line is:

Appeal concerning manuscript [manuscript ID]

The appeal must normally be submitted within 30 calendar days of the editorial decision.

It should include:

  • manuscript title and identification number;

  • date and type of the decision;

  • a concise statement of the grounds;

  • a point-by-point explanation of the alleged errors;

  • references to relevant reviewer or editor comments;

  • supporting evidence;

  • confirmation that all authors were informed;

  • disclosure of relevant competing interests.

The appeal must be professional, factual, and focused on the disputed decision. A revised manuscript should not normally be submitted unless the journal specifically requests it.

Preliminary Assessment of an Appeal

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized independent editor determines whether the appeal:

  • was submitted within the required period;

  • identifies an eligible ground;

  • contains sufficient supporting information;

  • concerns a decision made by the journal;

  • requires independent review.

An appeal that merely repeats disagreement with academic judgment or does not identify a material factual, procedural, or ethical concern may be declined without further investigation.

Independent Review of an Appeal

Where an appeal presents a legitimate ground, the journal may:

  • review the original manuscript;

  • review the decision letter;

  • examine reviewer reports;

  • consider the authors’ point-by-point response;

  • seek clarification from the handling editor;

  • consult original reviewers where appropriate;

  • appoint an independent editor;

  • obtain an additional review from a new expert;

  • request methodological, statistical, technical, or ethical advice.

Where possible, the substance of the appeal is assessed by an editor or qualified person who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

If the original decision was made personally by the Editor-in-Chief, the appeal is assigned to an independent senior editor, an Editorial Board member without a competing interest, or an external expert.

Original reviewers will not automatically be asked to determine alone whether their own conclusions were correct.

Possible Outcomes of an Appeal

An appeal may result in:

  • the original decision being upheld;

  • clarification of the decision without change;

  • return of the manuscript to the original editorial process;

  • appointment of a new handling editor;

  • appointment of one or more new reviewers;

  • an invitation to revise the manuscript;

  • reconsideration as a new submission;

  • withdrawal of the original decision and replacement by another editorial decision.

A successful appeal does not guarantee acceptance. It means only that the original decision or process requires reconsideration.

The Corresponding Author receives a written explanation of the outcome.

Finality and Number of Appeals

The journal normally permits only one appeal per manuscript and editorial decision.

The decision reached after the appeal process is normally final.

A further appeal may be considered only where substantial new evidence demonstrates a serious procedural or integrity concern that could not reasonably have been presented earlier.

Repeated submissions restating the same arguments may be closed without further response.

Scientific and Ethical Misconduct Concerns

Complaints involving the following are considered under the relevant publication ethics and misconduct policies:

  • plagiarism;

  • fabrication or falsification;

  • image or data manipulation;

  • duplicate publication;

  • peer review manipulation;

  • improper authorship;

  • unethical research;

  • citation manipulation;

  • undisclosed competing interests.

The journal may pause a complaint or appeal while a related integrity investigation is in progress. A decision concerning scientific validity may depend on an institutional or other competent investigation.

Complaints Concerning Published Content

A concern about a published article must clearly identify:

  • article title;

  • authors;

  • DOI or publication details;

  • the specific statement, data, image, calculation, or conclusion challenged;

  • supporting evidence;

  • the proposed correction, where applicable.

The journal may seek a response from the authors and obtain independent expert advice. Where necessary, it may publish a correction, editorial note, Editorial Expression of Concern, retraction, or another post-publication notice.

Post-publication action is governed by the journal’s Corrections and Retractions Policy.

Frivolous, Abusive, or Repetitive Submissions

The journal may decline or close a complaint or appeal that is:

  • manifestly unfounded;

  • knowingly false;

  • malicious;

  • threatening;

  • discriminatory;

  • abusive;

  • excessively repetitive;

  • unrelated to the journal;

  • intended to harass an individual;

  • submitted to manipulate an editorial outcome.

Before closure, the journal distinguishes persistent good-faith concern from vexatious or abusive conduct.

Where communication becomes abusive or threatening, the journal may limit further correspondence while preserving any legitimate integrity concern for appropriate assessment.

Record-Keeping

The journal maintains appropriately confidential records of:

  • complaints and appeals;

  • supporting documents;

  • relevant correspondence;

  • persons involved in review;

  • decisions and reasons;

  • corrective actions;

  • dates and procedural steps.

Records are retained under the journal’s data protection, confidentiality, and document-retention practices.

They may be used to identify recurring problems, improve editorial processes, update policies, train staff, assess compliance with ethical standards, and protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Personal information will not be retained or disclosed beyond what is reasonably necessary for these purposes.

External Standards

The complaints and appeals procedures of Geliotekhnika are informed by:

  • COPE Core Practices;

  • COPE guidance on complaints and appeals;

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers;

  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;

  • DOAJ Guide to Applying;

  • Scopus requirements for publication ethics and malpractice statements;

  • Web of Science criteria concerning editorial quality and research integrity;

  • the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement;

  • the journal’s Peer Review Policy;

  • the journal’s Editorial Board Policy;

  • the journal’s Conflicts of Interest Policy;

  • the journal’s Allegations of Misconduct Policy;

  • the journal’s Corrections and Retractions Policy;

  • applicable national legislation and internationally recognized standards of research integrity.

Policy Administration

This policy takes effect on the date of its publication on the journal’s official website and is reviewed periodically to maintain alignment with applicable ethical standards and the journal’s editorial practices.

Complaints, appeals, requests for further review, and questions concerning this policy should be submitted to ftikans@uzsci.net.

Relevant matters are considered in accordance with the journal’s applicable policies and current COPE guidance.

ISSN 0130-0997 (Print)
ISSN 2181-9963 (Online)