COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS POLICY
The Editorial Board of the Bulletin of the Kyrgyz National Agrarian University is committed to considering all complaints and appeals relating to the editorial process, peer review, publication ethics, and the content of published materials promptly, objectively, and constructively.
Each submission is considered individually, taking into account its nature, validity, and complexity. In making decisions, the Editorial Office is guided by the journal’s internal policies, the principles of publication ethics, and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Complaints, suggestions, and appeals should be sent to the journal’s official email address: info@knau-bulletin.com.
The Editorial Office acknowledges receipt of the submission and normally considers it within 30 working days. Where a submission requires further investigation, consultation with independent experts, examination of documentation, or explanations from participants in the publication process, the review period may be extended. In such cases, the complainant or appellant will be informed of the reasons for the delay.
PROCEDURE FOR SUBMITTING COMPLAINTS
A complaint may concern:
- a breach of the peer-review procedure;
- failure to observe confidentiality requirements;
- a possible conflict of interest;
- unethical conduct by an author, reviewer, editor, or another participant in the publication process;
- plagiarism, duplicate publication, data falsification, or fabrication;
- copyright infringement;
- improper use of personal data;
- errors or unreliable information in a published article;
- other possible breaches of the journal’s editorial policies or publication ethics.
A complaint must be concise, specific, and supported by reasoned arguments. It must contain sufficient information to identify the subject of the complaint, the relevant manuscript or published article, and the alleged breach.
Where supporting materials are available, the complainant is advised to provide relevant documents, links, correspondence, images, files, or other evidence relating to the matter under consideration.
Anonymous complaints may be considered where they contain sufficient and verifiable information about a possible breach. However, the absence of the complainant’s contact details may limit the Editorial Office’s ability to clarify the circumstances or provide a response following the investigation.
Upon receiving a complaint, the Editorial Office conducts a preliminary assessment of its content and determines whether the matter falls within the journal’s competence. Where necessary, the Editorial Office may request explanations from authors, reviewers, editors, or other persons connected with the matter under consideration.
Where a complaint concerns the conduct of the Editor-in-Chief or another person who may have a conflict of interest, responsibility for considering the complaint is transferred to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another independent member of the Editorial Board.
Following consideration of a complaint, the Editorial Office may:
- determine that the complaint is unfounded;
- request additional information;
- require the author to make corrections;
- publish a correction, clarification, or expression of concern;
- retract a published article;
- reconsider an editorial decision;
- take other measures provided for by the journal’s policies and the recommendations of COPE.
The complainant is provided with a written response setting out the outcome of the investigation and the decision taken, to the extent permitted by confidentiality and personal data protection requirements.
APPEALS POLICY
Authors have the right to appeal against an editorial decision to reject a manuscript where they believe that the decision resulted from a factual error, a misunderstanding of the article’s content, an inadequately justified reviewer’s conclusion, a breach of the peer-review procedure, or a conflict of interest.
An author’s disagreement with a negative assessment of the manuscript does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for reconsidering the decision. An appeal must contain specific scientific, methodological, or procedural arguments.
An appeal must include:
- the title and registration number of the manuscript;
- the date on which the editorial decision was received;
- details of the decision that the author is requesting the Editorial Office to reconsider;
- a point-by-point response to the comments of the editor and reviewers;
- an explanation of any alleged factual, scientific, or procedural errors;
- documents or other materials supporting the author’s position.
Authors are advised to submit an appeal within 30 calendar days of receiving the decision on the manuscript. Appeals submitted after this period may be considered where there are valid reasons for the delay.
Upon receiving an appeal, the Editorial Office determines whether it contains sufficient grounds for reconsidering the decision. The appeal will not be referred to an editor or reviewer whose objectivity has been reasonably questioned by the author.
An independent member of the Editorial Board, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, or an external expert who was not previously involved in assessing the manuscript may be appointed to consider the appeal.
Where necessary, the manuscript may be sent for additional independent peer review. Further peer review is conducted only where the Editorial Office considers the author’s arguments to be sufficiently substantiated.
Following consideration of an appeal, the Editorial Office may:
- uphold the original decision;
- overturn the decision to reject the manuscript;
- send the article for further or additional peer review;
- invite the author to revise the manuscript;
- make another decision based on the reports and information received.
The decision reached following consideration of the appeal is communicated to the author in writing. As a rule, this decision is final. A further appeal based on the same grounds will not be considered unless the author provides new and substantial information or evidence.
Submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the original editorial decision will be overturned and does not constitute automatic acceptance of the article for publication.
SUBMISSIONS OUTSIDE THE JOURNAL’S COMPETENCE
Where a complaint or appeal falls outside the authority and responsibility of the journal, the Editorial Office informs the complainant or appellant and explains why the submission cannot be considered on its merits.
Such submissions may include personal disputes between authors, reviewers, editors, or other persons where those disputes are not directly connected with the publication process, the content of an article, or compliance with the journal’s ethical standards.
The Editorial Office also reserves the right to decline to consider submissions expressed in insulting, threatening, discriminatory, or defamatory language. However, the use of unacceptable language does not prevent the Editorial Office from considering information concerning a potentially serious breach of publication ethics where the information is specific and verifiable.
All complaints and appeals are considered confidentially. Information about the complainant or appellant and the persons involved in the investigation is disclosed only to those whose participation is necessary for an objective consideration of the matter.