The Editorial Board of the “Ukrainian Journal of Constitutional Law” is committed to ensuring objectivity, transparency, and academic integrity across all stages of the publishing process. This Policy outlines the formal mechanism for submitting, processing, and resolving appeals regarding editorial decisions as well as complaints concerning procedural or ethical misconduct, in full accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Scope of Appeals and Complaints
The Journal encourages constructive academic dialogue and distinguishes between two separate categories of submissions:
- Appeals Against Editorial Decisions:
A formal request by author(s) to reconsider a decision regarding the rejection of their manuscript. Appeals are evaluated exclusively when the author provides clear, evidence-based arguments demonstrating that the rejection resulted from a factual error by reviewers, an oversight, or biased evaluation.
- Complaints Regarding Procedural or Ethical Breaches:
Formal reports regarding violations of publication procedures or ethical standards, including:
- Unreasonable delays in peer review or publication schedules;
- Unprofessional, biased, or unethical conduct by a reviewer or Editorial Board member;
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest involving reviewers or editors;
- Breaches of manuscript confidentiality during the double-blind peer review process;
- Plagiarism, duplicate publication, or authorship disputes in published papers.
2. Submission Guidelines
All appeals and complaints must be submitted electronically to the Editor-in-Chief at: editor@constjournal.com with the subject line “Appeal regarding manuscript [ID/Title]” or “Ethical Complaint”.
Required Submission Details:
- Full name, affiliation, position, and contact details of the applicant.
- Manuscript title and reference number (or DOI for published papers).
- A detailed statement outlining the appeal or complaint, referencing specific facts, author guidelines, or COPE standards.
- Supporting evidence: for appeals — a point-by-point scientific rebuttal of reviewer comments supported by academic literature; for complaints — verifiable documentary proof of the breach.
Note: General disagreement with reviewer commentary without scientific substantiation does not constitute valid grounds for an appeal. Authors are permitted **a maximum of one appeal per manuscript**.
3. Investigation Protocol and Conflicts of Interest
- Acknowledgment (within 5 business days): The Editor-in-Chief confirms receipt, checks compliance with formal requirements, and logs the case.
- Conflict of Interest Mitigation:
- If a complaint concerns a Reviewer, the investigation is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief alongside an independent Editorial Board member.
- If a complaint or appeal involves the Editor-in-Chief, the Editor-in-Chief recuses themselves from the case. The investigation is delegated to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or an ad-hoc Ethics Committee comprised of independent Editorial Board members.
- Investigation (within 30 calendar days):
- The investigating officer or Committee may request additional materials or statements from reviewers, authors, or editorial staff.
- All involved parties are granted the right to submit written explanations. Confidentiality is strictly maintained throughout the investigation.
4. Types of Decisions and Outcomes
Based on the investigation findings, one of the following decisions will be issued:
- For Rejection Appeals:
- Appeal Sustained: The manuscript is assigned to a new independent reviewer for a fresh double-blind evaluation (or invited for revision);
- Appeal Dismissed: The original rejection decision is upheld.
- For Procedural or Ethical Complaints:
- Assignment of new reviewers/editors to the manuscript;
- Issuance of a formal warning to a reviewer or editor, or removal from the Editorial Board roster;
- Official written apology to the complainant and implementation of corrective measures within editorial workflows;
- Initiation of correction or retraction procedures (in accordance with the Retraction and Correction Policy).
5. Finality of Decisions
Decisions rendered by the Editorial Board (or Ethics Committee) and approved by the Editor-in-Chief (or Deputy Editor in conflict cases) are **final and not subject to further internal appeal**.
If a complainant believes the Journal has failed to address a serious breach of publication ethics properly, they reserve the right to escalate the matter to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or the publisher.