1. General Provisions

The UNESCO Chair Journal “Lifelong Professional Education in the XXI Century” follows the principles of academic integrity, editorial independence, fairness, confidentiality, due diligence, and responsible handling of complaints about possible breaches of publication ethics.

This Policy sets out the procedure for the submission, registration, initial assessment, review, and resolution of complaints, reports, or well-grounded concerns about possible breaches of academic integrity and publication ethics at the stages of submission, peer review, editorial assessment, publication, and post-publication follow-up.

The Journal reviews such cases in accordance with its editorial policies, the principles of transparency, and recognised good editorial practice.

2. Who May Submit a Complaint

A complaint, report, or notice of a possible breach may be submitted by:

• an author;
• a co-author;
• a reviewer;
• an editor;
• a member of the editorial board;
• a reader;
• a representative of a research or educational institution;
• any other interested person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a breach of academic integrity or publication ethics may have taken place.

3. What Issues May Be the Subject of a Complaint

A complaint may concern, including but not limited to, the following cases:

• plagiarism;
• self-plagiarism;
• duplicate publication;
• fabrication of data;
• falsification of data;
• citation manipulation;
• improper authorship, including gift, honorary, forced, or fictitious authorship;
• failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest;
• unethical or non-transparent use of AI tools;
• breach of confidentiality during peer review or editorial assessment;
• misconduct by an author, reviewer, or editor;
• discriminatory or biased behaviour;
• copyright infringement or improper use of third-party materials;
• other breaches of academic integrity or publication ethics.

The Journal considers that this list is not exhaustive.

4. Where and How a Complaint May Be Submitted

A complaint shall be sent to the Journal’s editorial office by the official editorial email address info@unesco-journal.com.ua

The complaint should preferably include:

• the name and contact details of the complainant;
• the title of the article, manuscript, or other object of the complaint;
• a clear description of the concern;
• the circumstances that gave rise to the complaint;
• where available, documents, links, text extracts, screenshots, comparison materials, or other evidence.

The editorial office may also consider complaints without full identification of the complainant if the information provided is sufficiently specific, verifiable, and gives reasonable grounds for review.

5. Initial Assessment of a Complaint

After receiving a complaint, the editorial office carries out an initial assessment in order to determine:

• whether the issue falls within the Journal’s competence;
• whether the complaint contains enough information for review;
• whether the complaint is not clearly unfounded, abusive, or unsupported by any factual basis.

At this stage, the editorial office may:

• accept the complaint for review;
• ask the complainant to clarify or provide additional information;
• decline further review if the complaint does not contain a matter that can be assessed on its merits.

6. Procedure for Reviewing a Complaint on Its Merits

If a complaint is accepted for review, the editorial office may:

• request written explanations from the author(s), reviewer(s), editor(s), or other persons concerned;
• carry out an additional check of the manuscript or published article;
• use technical tools, including text similarity checking tools, where necessary;
• involve the Editor-in-Chief, members of the editorial board, authorised experts, or other competent persons in the assessment of the case;
• request additional clarification from the institution of the author, reviewer, or other responsible person, where necessary and justified.

During the review, the editorial office follows the principles of objectivity, impartiality, proportionality, confidentiality, and proper assessment of evidence.

A person against whom a complaint has been made should be given an opportunity to provide an explanation before a final decision is taken, except where the breach is obvious and clearly documented.

7. Confidentiality and Impartiality

The editorial office ensures confidential handling of complaints within the limits necessary for the proper review of the case.

Information about the complaint, its content, review materials, and interim findings shall not be disclosed to third parties without sufficient grounds, except where this is necessary for the proper review of the case, compliance with legal obligations, communication with institutions, or implementation of an editorial decision.

Persons who have a real, potential, or declared conflict of interest in relation to a specific case must not take part in the decision-making process for that complaint.

8. Possible Decisions Following the Review

After reviewing a complaint, the editorial office may decide to take one or more of the following actions:

• find the complaint unsubstantiated and close the case;
• ask the author(s) to provide explanations or make corrections;
• return the manuscript for revision;
• suspend the review of the manuscript until the matter is clarified;
• reject the manuscript;
• initiate a repeated peer review or additional expert assessment;
• publish a correction;
• publish an expression of concern;
• retract the article;
• inform the institution affiliated with the author or another person concerned, where the breach is serious;
• take other editorial measures appropriate to the nature of the breach and the Journal’s policies.

9. Post-Publication Cases

If the complaint concerns an article that has already been published, the editorial office reviews the matter in line with the Journal’s Post-Publication Changes Policy.

If a breach is confirmed, the editorial office may apply correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate editorial measures depending on the nature of the breach and its effect on the scholarly reliability of the publication.

10. Timeframe for Review

The editorial office aims to carry out the initial review of a complaint within a reasonable period and, where possible, to confirm receipt within 10 working days.

The total review period depends on the complexity of the case, the amount of material, the need to obtain explanations, and any additional checks. In complex cases, the review may take longer if this is necessary for an objective assessment of all circumstances.

11. Unfounded or Bad-Faith Complaints

The editorial office reserves the right not to consider complaints that contain insults, threats, abuse of the right to complain, or knowingly false statements without any factual basis.

The submission of a complaint must not be used as a way to put pressure on authors, reviewers, editors, or the Journal as a whole.

12. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This Policy is applied in connection with the other policies.

If the subject of a complaint falls under more than one Journal policy, the editorial office applies these policies in a consistent and combined manner.