1. General Provisions

The Editorial Board of the Bulletin of the Jusup Balasagyn Kyrgyz National University is committed to considering complaints and appeals relating to the editorial and publishing process in a timely, objective and constructive manner.

All submissions are considered in accordance with the principles of impartiality, confidentiality, procedural fairness and the absence of conflicts of interest. In making decisions, the Editorial Board takes account of the nature and complexity of the matter, the journal’s internal policies, applicable legislation and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The submission of a complaint or appeal must not in itself result in unfavourable treatment of the complainant or appellant or of their current or future manuscripts.

2. Complaints

A complaint is a submission concerning an action or omission by the Editorial Board, editors, reviewers, members of the Editorial Board or other persons involved in the editorial and publishing process.

A complaint may concern:

• failure to follow the established manuscript assessment procedure;
• an unjustified delay in the editorial process;
• failure to respond to an author’s correspondence;
• a breach of confidentiality;
• an undisclosed conflict of interest;
• inappropriate, discriminatory or unethical conduct;
• an unjustified requirement to cite particular publications;
• possible bias on the part of an editor or reviewer;
• a breach of the Peer Review Policy;
• failure to comply with the procedures for correcting or retracting published materials;
• other actions that may conflict with the journal’s policies or the principles of publication ethics.

A complaint must concern actions, decisions or procedures falling within the journal’s area of responsibility.

3. Appeals

An appeal is a reasoned request by an author for reconsideration of a decision to reject a manuscript, request revisions or assign another editorial status to it.

An appeal may be submitted where the author considers that:

• the editorial decision was based on a substantial factual error;
• the reviewer or editor misunderstood the content, methods or results of the research;
• important information contained in the article or in the author’s response was not taken into account during consideration of the manuscript;
• the decision was made in breach of the established editorial procedure;
• the editor or reviewer had an undisclosed conflict of interest;
• the reviewer’s comments fall outside the scope of scientific assessment or show signs of bias;
• the reviewer’s conclusions are not supported by specific arguments or by the content of the manuscript.

An author’s disagreement with an editorial decision, without a specific scientific or procedural justification, is not in itself sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

An appeal must relate to the version of the manuscript originally submitted and to the materials available to the Editorial Board at the time the decision was made. An appeal is not intended as a means of submitting a completely revised article or a new study in place of the rejected manuscript.

4. Submission Procedure

Complaints and appeals must be sent to the journal’s official email address:

info@balasagynbulletin.com

The subject line of the email must state:

• “Complaint” where the submission concerns the journal’s actions or procedures;
• “Appeal” where an editorial decision is being challenged.

The submission must include:

• the name and contact details of the complainant or appellant;
• the title and registration code of the manuscript, where the submission concerns a particular article;
• the date of the disputed decision or event;
• a concise and coherent description of the circumstances;
• a specific indication of the action, omission or decision with which the complainant or appellant disagrees;
• arguments supporting the complaint or appeal;
• the outcome sought;
• supporting documents and correspondence, where relevant to the matter.

The submission must be clear, specific and expressed in an appropriate manner. Complainants and appellants are advised to avoid unsupported allegations and to include only information directly relevant to the matter under consideration.

5. Time Limit for Appeals

Authors are advised to submit an appeal within 30 calendar days of receiving the editorial decision.

An appeal submitted after this period may be considered where there are valid reasons for the delay or substantial new circumstances that the author could not have reported earlier.

As a general rule, only one appeal is considered in relation to a manuscript. A further appeal is permitted only where there is new evidence, a substantial procedural breach or circumstances that were not, and could not have been, considered previously.

6. Initial Assessment

The Editorial Board acknowledges receipt of a complaint or appeal and determines:

• whether the matter falls within the journal’s competence;
• whether the submission contains the information required for its consideration;
• whether the person assigned to review the matter has any conflict of interest;
• whether additional documents or explanations are required.

Where the information provided is insufficient, the Editorial Board may request additional information from the complainant or appellant.

Failure to respond to a request from the Editorial Board within a reasonable period may result in the suspension or termination of the consideration process.

7. Consideration of Complaints

A complaint is considered by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Executive Secretary or another authorised person who has no conflict of interest.

During the consideration process, the Editorial Board may:

• review editorial correspondence and internal documents;
• request explanations from the author, editor, reviewer or member of the editorial staff;
• engage an independent specialist;
• seek advice from the publisher, a research institution or a publication ethics specialist;
• request documents and other materials necessary to establish the circumstances of the matter.

The person whose actions are the subject of the complaint must not consider the complaint alone or make the final decision on it.

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it is referred to the publisher, Deputy Editor-in-Chief or an independent member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the relevant editorial decision.

Where a complaint concerns the publisher, an independent person or body not involved in the matter is appointed to consider it.

8. Consideration of Appeals

The original editorial decision is not automatically overturned upon receipt of an appeal.

The appeal is assigned to an editor or member of the Editorial Board who:

• did not make the original decision;
• did not participate in the peer review of the manuscript;
• has no conflict of interest with the authors;
• possesses the necessary expertise to assess the arguments presented.

Where necessary, the Editorial Board may:

• re-examine the manuscript and the review reports;
• request explanations from the original editor or reviewer;
• submit the manuscript to an additional independent reviewer;
• obtain an assessment from a specialist in the relevant academic field;
• verify compliance with the established peer review procedure.

The appeal is assessed primarily to determine whether a substantial scientific, factual, ethical or procedural error occurred.

9. Possible Decisions on an Appeal

Following consideration of an appeal, the Editorial Board may:

• uphold the original decision;
• overturn the decision and resume consideration of the manuscript;
• submit the manuscript for additional independent peer review;
• invite the author to submit a revised version;
• amend the editorial decision in the light of the circumstances established.

Allowing an appeal and resuming consideration of the manuscript do not guarantee acceptance of the article for publication. The manuscript remains subject to further assessment in accordance with the journal’s standard editorial procedures.

The author is provided with a written response briefly outlining the outcome of the consideration and the reasons for the decision.

10. Timeframes for Consideration

The Editorial Board normally acknowledges receipt of a complaint or appeal within five working days.

The Editorial Board aims to provide a substantive response within 30 working days of receiving all the information required for consideration.

Where the matter requires additional peer review, the involvement of independent specialists, verification of documents or responses from third parties, the consideration period may be extended.

Where the period is extended, the Editorial Board informs the complainant or appellant of the reasons for the delay and the current status of the matter. An inability to complete the assessment within 30 working days does not result in the automatic acceptance or rejection of the complaint or appeal.

11. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Complaints and appeals are considered confidentially. Information concerning the complainant or appellant and the documents submitted are disclosed only to persons whose involvement is necessary for the objective consideration of the matter.

The complete anonymity of the complainant or appellant cannot be guaranteed where disclosure of their identity is necessary to verify the circumstances or to give another party an opportunity to respond to specific allegations. In such cases, the Editorial Board, where possible, informs the complainant or appellant in advance.

The Editorial Board does not publish personal data, correspondence or materials relating to the consideration of the matter, except where this is necessary to correct the scholarly record, comply with legal requirements or protect the legitimate interests of participants in the process.

12. Matters Outside the Journal’s Competence

The Editorial Board considers matters relating to editorial procedures, published materials and the actions of persons performing functions on behalf of the journal.

The Editorial Board is not authorised to resolve:

• personal disputes unrelated to publishing activities;
• employment or administrative conflicts within the authors’ institutions;
• authorship disputes requiring institutional or judicial consideration;
• allegations whose investigation requires the authority of an employer, research institution, ethics committee, law enforcement body or court;
• requests for a particular person to be subjected to disciplinary, administrative or criminal liability.

Where a submission falls outside the journal’s authority, the complainant or appellant is provided with a reasoned response. Where possible, the Editorial Board identifies the organisation or authority that may be competent to consider the relevant matter.

The Editorial Board nevertheless retains responsibility for determining whether a published item should be corrected, supplemented or retracted.

13. Unacceptable Forms of Submission

The Editorial Board does not tolerate insults, threats, discriminatory statements, harassment, disclosure of personal data, pressure on editors or reviewers, or knowingly defamatory allegations.

Where a submission contains such language, the complainant or appellant may be asked to resubmit it in an appropriate form.

The Editorial Board may limit further correspondence where the complainant or appellant:

• repeatedly submits identical complaints or appeals to which a substantive response has already been provided;
• fails to provide the requested information;
• uses the complaint or appeal process to exert pressure on or harass participants in the editorial process;
• continues to send offensive or threatening messages after receiving an appropriate warning.

The unacceptable form of a submission must not in itself constitute grounds for disregarding credible information concerning a potentially substantial breach. Where a submission contains verifiable information concerning a breach of publication ethics, the Editorial Board assesses that information independently of the complainant’s or appellant’s conduct.

14. Outcomes of Consideration

The outcome of the consideration of a complaint or appeal is communicated to the complainant or appellant in writing.

Depending on the circumstances established, the Editorial Board may:

• provide an explanation or issue an apology;
• correct a procedural error;
• reconsider an editorial decision;
• arrange a new independent peer review;
• replace an editor or reviewer;
• take measures to prevent similar cases in the future;
• publish a correction, editorial notice or retraction notice;
• refer information to a competent institution where the matter requires institutional consideration.

All decisions must be reasoned and proportionate to the nature of the problem identified.

A decision made following the independent consideration of an appeal is final within the journal’s internal procedures unless substantial new circumstances are identified.