Complaints and Appeals

Mechanics and Advanced Technologies is committed to handling all complaints and appeals in a fair, transparent, confidential, and timely manner in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices.

1. Scope

This policy applies to complaints related to editorial processes and published content, including:

  • editorial decisions on manuscripts
  • peer review process
  • ethical concerns
  • authorship disputes
  • conflicts of interest
  • post-publication issues

2. General Principles

  • fairness, objectivity, and impartiality
  • confidential handling of all complaints
  • evidence-based decision-making
  • protection of complainants from retaliation
  • editorial independence
  • transparent management of conflicts of interest

3. Types of Complaints

3.1 Editorial Complaints

  • rejection of manuscripts
  • delays in peer review
  • perceived bias in editorial decisions

3.2 Peer Review Complaints

  • unprofessional or inappropriate reviewer comments
  • conflict of interest involving reviewers
  • lack of reviewer expertise

3.3 Ethical Complaints

  • plagiarism
  • data fabrication or falsification
  • duplicate publication
  • authorship disputes
  • undeclared conflicts of interest

3.4 Post-Publication Issues

  • errors in published articles
  • requests for corrections
  • concerns about scientific integrity

4. Complaints Procedure

Step 1. Submission of Complaint

Complaints must be submitted in writing to the editorial office: maat@kpi.ua

The complaint should include:

  • article title or DOI (if applicable)
  • detailed description of the issue
  • supporting evidence (if available)

Step 2. Acknowledgement

  • acknowledgement within 5 working days
  • initial assessment of scope and relevance
  • conflict of interest check

Step 3. Review Process

Minor editorial issues: reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief within 10–15 working days.

Peer review disputes: may require additional independent review.

Ethical issues: referred to the Editorial or Ethics Committee following COPE guidelines.

Step 4. Investigation

  • requests for clarification from authors
  • communication with reviewers or institutions
  • plagiarism and similarity checks
  • consultation of COPE flowcharts
  • external expert review if necessary

Step 5. Decision

Possible outcomes include:

  • dismissal of the complaint (insufficient evidence)
  • revision of editorial decision
  • correction (Erratum or Corrigendum)
  • Expression of Concern
  • retraction of the article

All decisions are documented and communicated in writing.

Step 6. Appeals

  • appeals must be submitted within 30 days
  • review conducted by an independent editorial panel
  • external experts may be consulted if needed
  • the appeal decision is final

5. Post-Publication Actions

  • Erratum — correction of editorial errors
  • Corrigendum — author-initiated correction
  • Expression of Concern — notification of unresolved issues
  • Retraction — withdrawal of a publication

All actions follow COPE Retraction Guidelines. 

6. Confidentiality

  • all complaints are treated confidentially
  • complainant identity is protected where possible
  • data is not disclosed to third parties without necessity

7. Editorial Independence

Complaints are evaluated independently of authors’ institutions, funding bodies, publishers, or any external interests. Final decisions are made by the editorial board based solely on academic and ethical considerations.

8. Compliance with COPE

The journal adheres to COPE Core Practices and uses COPE flowcharts for handling ethical issues, authorship disputes, peer review manipulation, and post-publication concerns.