Complaints and Appeals Policy

The journal provides a clear and fair procedure for handling enquiries. This policy distinguishes complaints concerning the conduct of participants in the publishing process from appeals against editorial decisions and establishes procedures for submission, independent examination, response and subsequent reconsideration.

01. Purpose and types of enquiries

This policy applies to Technosphere Safety, its editorial office, reviewers, editorial board members, guest editors, staff, and its founder and publisher — the Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers National Research University (hereinafter the Institute). It covers regular and special issues, manuscript processing and previously published materials.

A complaint is an enquiry concerning actions, omissions, the quality of editorial services or compliance with policies, such as an unexplained delay, inappropriate communication, a breach of confidentiality or a conflict of interest. An appeal is a reasoned request by an author to reconsider a specific editorial decision concerning a manuscript, including rejection before external peer review.

Concerns regarding plagiarism, data reliability, authorship and other potential misconduct are accepted through the same channels but investigated under the relevant specialised policies. Where an enquiry involves several issues, the editorial office coordinates their handling and informs the complainant which procedure applies to each issue.

02. Who may submit an enquiry and grounds for consideration

A complaint may be submitted by an author, reviewer, reader, staff member or another interested individual or organisation. A substantive anonymous report is also examined where it provides sufficient information to identify the material and circumstances. The absence of a name is not, in itself, grounds for rejection; however, without contact information, opportunities for clarification and notification are limited.

An appeal against a general editorial decision is submitted by the corresponding author with the agreement of all co-authors. This requirement does not restrict the right of any co-author to report misconduct, an authorship dispute or another co-author's actions separately.

  • A significant factual or technical error in the assessment of a manuscript.
  • Relevant materials already provided during review that were overlooked and could have affected the decision.
  • A breach of the announced procedure, unjustified inconsistency in applying policies or indications of bias.
  • An unresolved conflict of interest involving an editor or reviewer that could have affected the decision.

Simple disagreement with an assessment of novelty or significance, a desire to accelerate career advancement or reference to money spent does not constitute sufficient grounds. A substantially revised study containing new findings is generally treated as a new submission where the editorial office permits it; such revision does not demonstrate that the earlier version was assessed incorrectly.

03. How and when to submit an enquiry

Enquiries should be submitted through the manuscript correspondence function in OJS or to technosphere@tiiame.uz. The subject line should state "Complaint" or "Appeal" and the manuscript number; for a published article, provide its title and DOI or URL. A duplicate submission of the same manuscript is not required to register an enquiry.

  • Provide contact information for the response, your relationship to the material and the date of the disputed decision or event.
  • Describe the specific circumstances and, where known, the policy that may have been breached.
  • Attach relevant documents, correspondence, links and a structured explanation of the arguments; for an appeal, address the disputed points in the editorial or review reports.
  • State the desired outcome, such as correction of a technical error, an explanation for a delay or independent reconsideration of a decision.

Appeals must be submitted within 30 calendar days of receiving the decision. Where a delay is justified, for example by the late discovery of a significant circumstance or a documented obstacle, an independent handling editor may accept a later appeal, recording the reason. Complaints concerning publication reliability, ethics or misconduct have no such deadline; reporting promptly after discovering the problem is recommended.

Enquiries are accepted in Russian, English and Uzbek. Consideration of complaints and appeals is free of charge. A complainant may request confidential treatment of their identity and explain any risks associated with disclosure.

04. Responsible person and independence of review

Following a conflict-of-interest check, a qualified person who did not participate in the contested decision and is not implicated in the complaint is appointed. An appeal concerning scientific assessment is reviewed by an authorised independent editor; a staff member who registers correspondence does not thereby gain authority to decide scientific matters. Participants in the original consideration may provide explanations but must not decide complaints about their own actions.

Where an enquiry concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it is referred to a non-conflicted editorial board member to organise independent consideration under the Editorial Governance and Independence Policy. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief may participate only if there is no conflict or previous involvement; an external editor is appointed where professional or institutional dependence exists. An interested manager must not select the person reviewing the case or approve their findings.

Where submission through the editorial office is difficult, the Institute's official contact channels at https://tiiame.uz/ may be used, specifying the need for independent consideration. Where the publisher or Institute management is involved, external review and, where necessary, an independent panel are arranged under the governance policy. An administrative decision by the founder does not replace an editor's scientific decision.

The complainant is informed who is responsible for the review and may raise a reasoned objection based on a conflict of interest. Such an objection is assessed by another non-conflicted person; the complainant does not appoint the editor or determine the panel's composition.

05. Registration and initial assessment

The editorial office records the date of receipt, assigns a case number, acknowledges the enquiry and explains the next stage. The relevance of the issue, sufficiency of information, applicable procedure and need for urgent measures are assessed. An incorrectly labelled enquiry is not rejected on that basis; it is assigned to the appropriate procedure, and the complainant is informed.

Where information is insufficient, specific clarification is requested and a reasonable deadline, normally 10 working days, is set; a justified request for an extension is considered. If the complainant does not respond, the case may be closed with an explanation that the evidence is insufficient. Silence does not prove misconduct, and significant indications of risk to the reliability of a publication are examined using the information available.

An evident threat to confidentiality, participant safety or the reliability of material being published is assessed without waiting for the ordinary deadline to expire. Temporary restrictions on access or suspension of publication must be proportionate and documented; they do not constitute a finding of guilt.

06. Substantive consideration of an appeal

The independent editor compares the original manuscript version, decision, review reports, authors' responses and submitted arguments with the rules applicable at the time of consideration. Explanations and a new expert assessment may be requested where necessary. The opinion of a person whose impartiality is disputed must not be the sole basis for the outcome.

An appeal does not reveal anonymous reviewers' identities to authors or permit quality requirements to be bypassed. Reopening consideration does not guarantee acceptance: the Peer Review Policy requirements, including the necessary number of independent reports, remain mandatory. Where an appeal succeeds only on a procedural issue, the procedure is corrected and the scientific outcome is determined by subsequent assessment.

While a manuscript appeal is under consideration, authors must not submit the manuscript to another journal. To submit it elsewhere, the corresponding author sends written notice withdrawing the appeal; the editorial office records and confirms its termination without requiring approval for the withdrawal itself. If the manuscript is already under consideration elsewhere, this must be disclosed and the appeal seeking renewed consideration is terminated. A report of potential ethical misconduct may nevertheless continue to be examined.

07. Investigation of a complaint and establishment of facts

The responsible person examines correspondence, OJS records and relevant documents. The person whose actions are questioned is informed of the substance of the complaint and given an opportunity to respond, normally within 10 working days, with a justified extension where appropriate. The complainant's identity and third-party information are disclosed only to the extent necessary.

Parties are given an opportunity to comment on significant new information that may form the basis of an adverse finding, taking account of confidentiality and participant protection. A statement, a participant's position or a failure to respond does not replace assessment of evidence. Research misconduct matters are referred under the Policy on Handling Allegations of Misconduct; the editorial office does not substitute for an investigation by an authorised research institution.

A service-related complaint may result in resolving a delay, correcting a technical error or changing a working procedure. Problems identified in published articles are addressed under the Corrections, Retractions and Post-publication Updates Policy. Submitting or withdrawing a complaint or filing an appeal does not automatically suspend measures necessary to protect the reliability of the scholarly record.

08. Target timelines and communication

  • Acknowledgement of receipt: within 5 working days of receiving the enquiry.
  • Initial assessment and notification of the review procedure: within 10 working days of receipt.
  • Ordinary substantive decision: the target is 30 working days after sufficient information for consideration has been received.
  • Where an extension is required: the complainant is informed of the reason, actions taken within permissible limits and the next expected response date; a status update is provided at least once every 30 calendar days.

These are internal operational targets of the journal, not guaranteed deadlines for external investigations or dates of article acceptance. Working days are Monday through Friday, excluding official non-working days in Uzbekistan. The need for expert assessment or a response from an institution may extend the period but does not remove the obligation to provide updates.

Missing information is identified specifically; a minor clarification must not be used to unjustifiably restart the deadline. If an acknowledgement or subsequent response is not provided on time, the complainant may follow up with the case number and subsequently use the independent route described in Section 4.

09. Outcomes, further enquiries and case closure

The complainant receives a written response setting out the main established facts, findings on the arguments, reasons, measures to be taken and procedures for further enquiries. Confidential expert materials, personal data and information concerning personnel measures are not disclosed in full. Affected participants receive information relevant to them.

  • Uphold the editorial decision or find the complaint unsubstantiated, with an explanation of the reasons.
  • Uphold the enquiry in full or in part: correct an error, replace a participant, reopen consideration or arrange an independent reassessment.
  • Refer a specific issue to the relevant specialised procedure or competent institution, informing the complainant of the reason and further contact arrangements, where known.

As a rule, one substantive appeal is permitted against a particular editorial decision. After its conclusion, repeating the same arguments does not initiate another round of assessment. However, significant new evidence, a previously unknown conflict or a serious defect in the appeal procedure itself may justify reopening the case; this is decided by another independent person.

A complaint concerning the handling of a complaint or appeal itself is referred through the independent route described in Section 4. Completion of the internal procedure does not restrict the right to approach a competent external institution or prevent correction of a publication where new grounds arise. The decision to close a case and the reasons for closure are recorded; repeated reports without new facts may be consolidated with the previously concluded case.

10. Protection of participants, recordkeeping and implementation

A good-faith enquiry must not result in rejection of future submissions, adverse treatment, threats or other retaliatory measures. An unsubstantiated complaint does not itself constitute abuse. Where threats or insults occur, the editorial office may restrict the form of communication while maintaining a safe channel and considering the substantive issues; the reason for the restriction is communicated and recorded.

Access to case materials is granted on a need-to-know basis. The editorial office protects the complainant's identity where possible but does not promise absolute anonymity: identity may be apparent from the circumstances or disclosure may be required for fair examination or mandatory reporting. Where possible and permissible, the need to disclose identity is discussed with the complainant in advance; only the minimum necessary information is shared.

The enquiry, dates, documents, recusals, appointments of responsible persons, responses and grounds for decisions are retained in secure records. Retention periods and processing of personal data are governed by the Privacy Policy. Aggregated, de-identified findings are used to improve the journal's operations; complaint materials do not automatically become public.

This policy applies following approval and official publication. Actions and updates are recorded with their actual dates. Transition to a revised policy must not be used to shorten an already granted period for submitting an enquiry or retrospectively justify violations.

Methodological references

The principles of transparency established by DOAJ and COPE, as well as general publisher approaches to handling appeals, have been considered. The scope, deadlines and organisational arrangements below are established by the journal itself; policies of other publishers are not automatically adopted.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-3981 (Online)