Complaints and Appeals Procedure

The Ukrainian Journal of Constitutional Law is committed to ensuring a fair, transparent and consistent process for handling appeals and complaints arising from the editorial and publishing process.

This Procedure distinguishes between two principal types of correspondence:

  • appeals concerning editorial decisions on submitted manuscripts;
  • complaints concerning procedural, ethical, organisational or other aspects of the Journal’s activities.

Concerns relating to research or publication misconduct in already published materials are also considered under the Journal’s Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions Policy.

Contents:

1. Appeals and Complaints: Scope and Distinction

1.1. Appeal against an Editorial Decision

An author or authors may appeal an editorial decision concerning a submitted manuscript, including a decision to reject the manuscript.

Grounds for an appeal may include:

  • a material factual error in the assessment of the manuscript;
  • a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript or the author’s response to reviewer comments;
  • a significant departure from the established peer review procedure;
  • an undisclosed or inadequately managed conflict of interest;
  • other material circumstances that may have affected the editorial decision.

General disagreement with a reviewer’s scholarly assessment, without specific supporting reasons, is not by itself sufficient grounds for an appeal.

1.2. Complaint

A complaint may concern the conduct or failure to act of the editorial office, reviewers, editors, editorial staff or the Publisher, including:

  • failure to follow an established editorial procedure;
  • breaches of confidentiality;
  • possible conflicts of interest;
  • unethical or inappropriate conduct by a participant in the editorial process;
  • unreasonable delays in the consideration of a submission;
  • other possible breaches of publication ethics.

2. Who May Submit an Appeal or Complaint

An appeal or complaint may be submitted by:

  • an author or co-author;
  • a reviewer;
  • a member of the editorial board;
  • a reader or other researcher;
  • a representative of an institution;
  • another person who has substantiated information relevant to the matter.

3. Submission of an Appeal or Complaint

Appeals and complaints should be sent to the Journal’s official email address: editor@constjournal.com.

The subject line should preferably indicate:

  • “Appeal concerning a manuscript” – for an appeal;
  • “Complaint concerning an editorial or ethical matter” – for a complaint.

The submission should include, where applicable:

  • the name and contact details of the complainant or appellant;
  • the title of the manuscript or article;
  • the manuscript identifier or DOI of the published article, if known;
  • a clear description of the matter;
  • specific arguments and facts;
  • documents, links or other supporting materials.

Anonymous submissions may also be considered where they contain specific and verifiable information sufficient for an independent assessment.

4. Initial Review and Registration

The editorial office will, where possible, acknowledge receipt of an appeal or complaint within 5 working days.

At the initial stage, the Journal determines:

  • the nature and scope of the submission;
  • whether the matter falls within the Journal’s remit;
  • what additional information may be required;
  • whether any conflict of interest exists among those who may participate in the review.

Where necessary, the Journal may ask the complainant or appellant to provide additional information or clarification.

5. Consideration of Appeals

An appeal is considered with reference to the original editorial decision, reviewer reports, correspondence with the author and other relevant documentation.

During consideration of an appeal, the Journal may:

  • verify whether the established procedure was properly followed;
  • request additional clarification from the author;
  • ask a reviewer to clarify specific aspects of a review without disclosing the reviewer’s identity to the author;
  • seek an additional independent expert assessment;
  • reconsider the editorial decision where a material error or procedural problem is identified.

Where an appeal concerns the rejection of a Research Article, any additional consideration or review will respect the principles of independence and confidentiality applicable to the peer review process.

6. Consideration of Complaints

When considering a complaint, the Journal may review documents, editorial correspondence, review materials and other circumstances relevant to the matter.

Depending on the nature of the complaint, the Journal may:

  • request a written explanation from the relevant editor, reviewer or other person;
  • request additional information from the complainant;
  • conduct an internal procedural review;
  • appoint an independent expert who has no conflict of interest;
  • where necessary, contact the relevant institution or another competent body.

Where a complaint concerns possible research or publication misconduct in an already published article, further action is also taken in accordance with the Journal’s Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions Policy.

7. Conflicts of Interest and Independent Review

A person who has a conflict of interest concerning an appeal or complaint should not independently make the final decision on the matter.

Where a submission concerns the conduct or decision of one of the Co-Editors-in-Chief, the other Co-Editor-in-Chief, provided that they were not involved in the disputed decision or circumstances, conducts or coordinates the review within their editorial authority.

Where a submission concerns both Co-Editors-in-Chief, or circumstances in which an impartial internal review cannot reasonably be conducted, the Journal may appoint an independent specialist or member of the editorial board with no conflict of interest.

In complex cases, the Journal may also seek an independent assessment from the Publisher, a relevant institution or another competent body.

8. Possible Outcomes

Following consideration of an appeal, the Journal may:

  • uphold the original editorial decision;
  • review the decision in whole or in part;
  • send the manuscript for additional or repeated peer review;
  • invite the author to revise the manuscript;
  • continue editorial consideration in accordance with the established procedure.

Following consideration of a complaint, the Journal may:

  • find that no violation has been established and close the matter;
  • identify a procedural deficiency and take corrective measures;
  • modify the relevant editorial procedure;
  • appoint another reviewer or editor where appropriate;
  • take appropriate internal measures concerning a participant in the editorial process;
  • initiate a correction or retraction procedure where provided for by the relevant Journal policy.

9. Notification of the Decision

After the consideration has been completed, the Journal will inform the complainant or appellant of the outcome within a reasonable timeframe, where practicable.

The response should indicate whether the submission has been upheld in full, upheld in part or rejected and should, where possible, provide a brief explanation of the decision.

The Journal will not disclose confidential information concerning reviewers or other participants in the editorial process unless such disclosure is expressly permitted by Journal policy or required by law.

10. Further Correspondence and New Evidence

An author may submit one appeal concerning a specific editorial decision.

A further submission concerning the same matter may be considered where it contains materially new evidence, new facts or information concerning a potentially serious procedural error that was not addressed during the previous consideration.

Complaints that contain no new information and merely repeat matters that have already been properly considered and addressed with a reasoned response may be regarded as closed.

This does not prevent any person from notifying the Journal of new facts or evidence concerning possible academic or publication misconduct.

11. Confidentiality and Protection of Participants

Information obtained during the consideration of appeals and complaints will be used only to the extent necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

The Journal seeks to protect personal data, confidential manuscript materials and other restricted information in accordance with applicable law and the Journal’s internal policies.

Persons who make good-faith reports of possible misconduct should not be subject to retaliation or adverse treatment merely because they have raised a concern.

Appeals and complaints should be submitted and handled professionally, in good faith and without abusive or discriminatory language.

12. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This Procedure operates together with the Journal’s other policies, including:

In complex cases, the Journal may take into account relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and seek independent expert assistance where necessary.