Complaints and Appeals Policy

The Uzbek Journal "Problems of Mechanics" is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, respectful, timely, and academically independent publishing process for authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other participants.

The journal recognizes that 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 complaints and appeals will be considered objectively, consistently, and in accordance with procedural fairness, the journal’s applicable policies, and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Submitting a complaint or appeal 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;
  • peer review administration;
  • unreasonable delays in manuscript processing;
  • communication by editors or journal staff;
  • implementation of journal policies;
  • editorial independence;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • 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 made in relation to submitted manuscripts.

Allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, peer review manipulation, unethical research, improper authorship, or other research and publication misconduct are primarily handled under the journal’s Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

A complaint may nevertheless be submitted concerning the way in which such an allegation was handled.

Definitions

A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction concerning the journal’s policies, procedures, services, conduct, administration, editorial practices, staff, Editorial Board, publisher, or published content.

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

An appeal challenges the basis or procedure of an editorial decision. It is not a request for ordinary 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

Complaints and appeals will be considered by persons who are appropriately qualified and, wherever reasonably possible, were not directly involved in the matter under review.

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

  • a direct involvement in the disputed decision;
  • a personal, financial, professional, or institutional conflict of interest;
  • participated in the conduct being challenged;
  • another relationship that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Where necessary, the matter will be assigned to an independent editor, Editorial Board member, publisher representative, or external adviser.

Good-Faith Submissions and Protection From Retaliation

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

A complaint or appeal will not affect the 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 submissions containing deliberate falsehoods, threats, harassment, discriminatory language, fabricated evidence, or knowingly malicious allegations.

Confidentiality

Complaints and appeals will be handled with an appropriate degree of confidentiality.

Information will normally be shared only with persons who require access in order to assess, investigate, or resolve the matter.

The identity of a complainant, appellant, whistleblower, reviewer, or other involved person will be protected where reasonably possible. However, complete anonymity or confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where:

  • disclosure is necessary for a fair investigation;
  • the person concerned must be given an opportunity to respond;
  • institutional or legal involvement is required;
  • the integrity of the scholarly record must be protected;
  • disclosure is required by applicable law.

Sensitive personal information that is not relevant to the matter will not be unnecessarily disclosed.

Timeliness

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

The journal will seek to complete the initial assessment and provide a substantive response within 30 calendar days, where reasonably possible.

Complex matters involving several parties, external experts, institutional investigations, legal issues, or extensive documentation may require additional time.

Where significant delay occurs, the person submitting the complaint or appeal will be informed of the status of the matter where appropriate.

These timeframes are operational targets rather than absolute guarantees.

Submitting a Complaint

Complaints must be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office at:

instmechofficial@gmail.com

The subject line should preferably state:

Complaint concerning [brief description or manuscript ID]

The complaint should include, where applicable:

  • the complainant’s full name and contact details;
  • the manuscript title and identification number;
  • the 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. However, anonymity may limit the journal’s ability to investigate or communicate an outcome.

Preliminary Assessment of a Complaint

After receiving a complaint, the journal will determine:

  • whether the matter falls within the scope of this policy;
  • whether sufficient information has been provided;
  • whether the complaint should be considered under another journal policy;
  • whether an urgent action is necessary;
  • whether a conflict of interest exists;
  • who should be responsible for reviewing 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;
  • lacks sufficient information after clarification has been requested;
  • merely repeats a matter already fully considered without new evidence;
  • consists solely of disagreement with a legitimate academic judgment;
  • is abusive, threatening, knowingly false, or submitted for an improper purpose.

The complainant will normally be informed of the reason for closing the matter.

Investigation of a Complaint

A complaint accepted for investigation may involve:

  • reviewing manuscript records;
  • examining editorial correspondence;
  • assessing peer review reports;
  • reviewing the journal’s 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 documentation from an institution or organization.

All affected persons should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to material concerns relating to their conduct or decisions.

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

Such a complaint will be referred to:

  • an independent senior member of the Editorial Board;
  • the publisher;
  • another qualified person who was not involved in the matter;
  • an external adviser, where appropriate.

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

Complaints Concerning the Publisher

A complaint concerning I-EDU GROUP LLC or a person acting on behalf of the publisher will be referred to a qualified person or body that was 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 the investigation, the journal will normally provide a written response that:

  • summarizes the issue considered;
  • explains the procedure followed;
  • states the main findings;
  • identifies any action taken or proposed;
  • provides reasons for the outcome;
  • explains whether further internal review is available.

Possible outcomes may include:

  • no further action;
  • an explanation or clarification;
  • an apology;
  • correction of administrative or factual information;
  • improvement of communication;
  • revision of an internal procedure;
  • reassignment of a manuscript;
  • appointment of a new editor or reviewer;
  • additional independent assessment;
  • correction, expression of concern, or retraction;
  • referral to another journal policy;
  • notification of an institution or competent authority;
  • staff or Editorial Board training;
  • another proportionate corrective measure.

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

Request for Further Review of a Complaint

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

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.

A request for further review will not be accepted solely because the complainant disagrees with the outcome.

Where possible, the review will be conducted by a person who was not involved in the original investigation.

The outcome of this review will normally be final within the journal’s internal process.

Grounds for an Editorial Appeal

An appeal may be considered where the 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 journal’s stated Peer Review Policy;
  • an undisclosed competing interest that may have affected the decision;
  • demonstrable bias or inappropriate conduct;
  • a reviewer or editor relying on a clearly incorrect factual premise;
  • a substantial and relevant part of the original submission being overlooked;
  • inconsistency between the decision and the reasons communicated to the authors.

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

Matters That Are Normally Not Grounds for Appeal

An appeal will normally not be accepted where it is based solely on:

  • disagreement with the reviewers’ or editor’s scientific judgment;
  • dissatisfaction with rejection;
  • a desire to submit an extensively redesigned study;
  • new experiments or analyses completed after the original decision;
  • new arguments that were not presented in the original manuscript;
  • preference for different reviewers;
  • disagreement with the journal’s aims and scope;
  • a request to reconsider a manuscript without identifying a factual, ethical, or procedural error;
  • the authors’ academic position, reputation, institutional affiliation, or publication needs.

New research results obtained after the editorial 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:

instmechofficial@gmail.com

The subject line should preferably state:

Appeal concerning manuscript [manuscript ID]

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

The appeal should include:

  • the manuscript title and identification number;
  • the date and type of the editorial decision;
  • a concise statement of the grounds for appeal;
  • a point-by-point explanation of the alleged errors;
  • references to the relevant reviewer or editor comments;
  • supporting evidence;
  • confirmation that all authors have been informed;
  • disclosure of any relevant competing interests.

The appeal should be professional, factual, and focused on the disputed decision.

A revised manuscript must not normally be submitted with the appeal unless the journal specifically requests it.

Preliminary Assessment of an Appeal

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized independent editor will first determine whether the appeal:

  • was submitted within the required period;
  • identifies an eligible ground for appeal;
  • contains sufficient supporting information;
  • relates to a decision made by the journal;
  • requires independent review.

An appeal may be declined without further investigation where it merely restates the authors’ disagreement with academic judgment or does not identify a material factual, procedural, or ethical concern.

Independent Review of an Appeal

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

  • review the original manuscript;
  • review the editorial decision letter;
  • examine the reviewer reports;
  • consider the authors’ point-by-point response;
  • seek clarification from the handling editor;
  • consult one or more 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 substantive appeal will be 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 should be assigned to an independent senior editor, Editorial Board member, or external expert.

The original reviewers will not automatically be asked to determine whether their own conclusions were correct.

Possible Outcomes of an Appeal

An appeal may result in one of the following outcomes:

  • the original decision is upheld;
  • the decision is clarified but remains unchanged;
  • the manuscript is returned to the original editorial process;
  • a new handling editor is appointed;
  • one or more new reviewers are appointed;
  • the manuscript is invited for revision;
  • the manuscript is reconsidered as a new submission;
  • the original decision is withdrawn and replaced by another editorial decision.

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

The journal will provide the Corresponding Author with a written explanation of the appeal outcome.

Finality and Number of Appeals

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

The decision reached after completion of the appeal process will normally be 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 suspected:

  • plagiarism;
  • fabrication or falsification;
  • image or data manipulation;
  • duplicate publication;
  • peer review manipulation;
  • improper authorship;
  • unethical research;
  • citation manipulation;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest

will be considered under the journal’s relevant misconduct and publication ethics policies.

The journal may pause a complaint or appeal while a related integrity investigation is in progress.

A decision concerning the scientific validity of an article may depend on the outcome of an institutional or other competent investigation.

Complaints Concerning Published Content

Concerns about published articles should clearly identify:

  • the article title;
  • author names;
  • DOI or publication details;
  • the specific statement, data, image, calculation, or conclusion being challenged;
  • supporting evidence;
  • the proposed correction, where appropriate.

The journal may seek a response from the authors and obtain independent expert advice.

Where necessary, the journal may publish:

  • a correction;
  • an editorial note;
  • an expression of concern;
  • a retraction;
  • another appropriate post-publication notice.

Post-publication action will be governed by the journal’s Correction and Retraction 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 closing a matter, the journal should distinguish 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 will maintain appropriately confidential records of:

  • complaints and appeals;
  • supporting documents;
  • relevant correspondence;
  • persons involved in the review;
  • decisions and reasons;
  • corrective actions;
  • dates and procedural steps.

Records will be retained in accordance with the journal’s applicable data protection, confidentiality, and document-retention practices.

Complaint and appeal records may be used to:

  • identify recurring procedural problems;
  • improve editorial workflows;
  • revise journal policies;
  • provide staff training;
  • assess compliance with ethical standards;
  • 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 the Uzbek Journal "Problems of Mechanics" are informed by:

  • COPE Core Practices;
  • COPE guidance concerning complaints and appeals;
  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers;
  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;
  • 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 Correction and Retraction Policy;
  • applicable national legislation and internationally recognized research integrity standards.

Policy Administration

This policy is effective from 1 August 2026 and will be reviewed periodically to ensure its continued alignment with applicable ethical standards and the editorial practices of the Uzbek Journal "Problems of Mechanics".

Complaints, appeals, requests for further review, or questions concerning this policy should be submitted to the Editorial Office at:

instmechofficial@gmail.com

All relevant matters will be considered in accordance with the journal’s applicable policies and relevant COPE guidance.


ISSN 2010-7250 (Online)