The editorial board of the journal “Scientific Bulletin of Kherson State University. Series ‘Germanic Studies and Intercultural Communication’” adheres to the principles of academic integrity, responsible scholarly publishing, and zero tolerance for any form of unethical conduct within the editorial process. A transparent and fair complaint-handling procedure is an essential element of trust in the journal, the protection of all participants in the publication process, and the preservation of academic integrity.

The journal provides an opportunity to submit concerns regarding possible misconduct by authors, reviewers, editors, or other persons involved in the preparation, evaluation, or publication of manuscripts. All reports are considered confidentially, impartially, and within a reasonable time frame, with due regard to procedural fairness.

The editorial office follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, international publishing standards, and applicable legislation of Ukraine.

Grounds for Complaint

Complaints may concern substantiated suspicions or confirmed cases involving:

• plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or improper citation practices;
• fabrication, falsification, or deliberate misrepresentation of research results;
• duplicate or redundant publication without disclosure;
• improper authorship attribution or exclusion of legitimate contributors;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• breach of manuscript confidentiality;
• biased, abusive, or unprofessional peer review;
• discriminatory conduct on linguistic, national, gender, religious, or other grounds;
• misuse of artificial intelligence contrary to journal policy;
• copyright infringement or unauthorized use of third-party materials;
• failure to follow editorial procedures or abuse of editorial authority.

Submission of Complaints

Complaints may be submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, institutional representatives, or any person possessing relevant information.

Reports should be submitted in written or electronic form and include:

• a clear description of the circumstances;
• title of the article or manuscript (if applicable);
• names of persons concerned, where known;
• documents, links, or other supporting materials;
• contact details for follow-up communication.

Anonymous complaints may also be considered if they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information.

Stages of Consideration

Upon receipt, the editorial office conducts a preliminary assessment of the scope and sufficiency of the information provided. If the matter falls within the journal’s competence and appears plausible, a formal review is initiated.

The editorial office may:

• request written explanations from authors, reviewers, or other parties;
• conduct similarity checks or examine primary materials;
• consult independent experts;
• contact the institution where the research was conducted;
• temporarily suspend editorial processing until the matter is resolved.

All parties have the right to be heard and to present their position.

Timeframes

The journal seeks to resolve complaints without undue delay.
The duration of the procedure depends on the complexity of the case, the volume of evidence, and whether external expertise is required. Where additional time is necessary, the complainant may be informed accordingly.

Possible Outcomes

Following review, the editorial board may decide on one or more of the following measures:

• no breach established;
• formal clarification to the parties concerned;
• request for corrections or additional disclosure;
• renewed peer review;
• rejection of the manuscript;
• temporary restrictions on future submissions;
• editorial expression of concern;
• retraction of the article;
• notification of the relevant institution or competent authorities.

Any measure adopted must be proportionate to the seriousness of the violation.

Principles of the Procedure

All complaints are handled in accordance with the principles of:

• impartiality and independence;
• confidentiality;
• respect for reputation until facts are established;
• presumption of good faith;
• evidence-based assessment;
• non-discrimination;
• academic responsibility.

Right to Reconsideration

Any person affected by a decision, or the complainant, may request reconsideration where significant new facts or evidence emerge that were not available during the initial review.