Complaints and Appeals Policies

Journal Ethical Standards, Complaints, Appeals, Misconduct, Retraction & Editorial Integrity Policy

This unified policy ensures ethical publishing, transparent decisions, independent editorial oversight, and responsible management of publication records

Purpose & Scope

This policy governs all activities of the journal including ethical conduct, review transparency, publication decisions, management of conflicts of interest, misconduct investigations, corrections, withdrawals, retractions, and long-term record integrity. It applies to authors, reviewers, editors, the editorial office, and the publisher.

Investigation & Decision Framework

  • Initial evaluation of complaint or allegation
  • Evidence compilation: Reports, editorial records, peer reviews
  • Consultation: with editors, reviewers, or external experts
  • COPE-compliant decision: with documented justification
  • Actions: re-review, correction, retraction, sanctions
  • Issuance of formal circular: if policy or procedures require updates

Editorial Independence, Transparency & Oversight

  • Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit.
  • Publisher cannot influence editorial outcomes.
  • Editors are protected from political, institutional, or financial pressure.
  • Double-blind peer review & identities remain confidential
  • All editorial decisions are documented, archived, and auditable.

1. Complaints & Appeals 

The journal ensures that all complaints from editorial, ethical, procedural, or conduct-related are addressed impartially, confidentially, and without prejudice. 

  • Submission: Via official journal email address (https://tufsteam.com/index.php/tufsteam/about/contact) with manuscript ID/Title and evidence.
  • Acknowledgement: Within 5 working days.
  • Preliminary Review: Within 10 working days.
  • Full Investigation: 2–6 weeks depending on complexity of the issue
  • Outcome Notification: Within 7 days after investigation.
  • Appeals: One-time appeal is allowed within 15 days after the decision with strong evidence, reviewed by an independent editor.

3. Professional  Misconduct

Misconduct includes:

  • Plagiarism (text/data/images/ideas)
  • Fabrication, falsification, or data manipulation
  • Image alteration beyond technical clarity
  • Duplicate/redundant publication
  • Fake or manipulated peer review
  • Authorship manipulation or gift authorship
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Ethics approval violations (human/animal studies)

The investigation procedure includes:

  • Initial screening of allegation & evidence
  • Examination of submission history, similarity reports, peer review comments
  • Request for raw data, ethics certificates, approvals, images
  • Expert consultation
  • Author response window: 7–10 days
  • Institutional notification for serious misconduct
  • Final documented decision in accordance with COPE flowcharts

Possible outcomes include: Correction, expression of concern, retraction, future submission bans, or institutional reporting.

4. Conflict of Interest (COI) 

  • Authors: Must disclose financial/non-financial COI, sponsor roles, and affiliations.
  • Reviewers: Must decline if any personal, academic, professional, or institutional conflict exists.
  • Editors: Must recuse from manuscripts where any conflict exists.
  • Enforcement: Suspected non-disclosure triggers formal investigation and potential correction or retraction.
Possible outcomes include: Correction, expression of concern, retraction, future submission bans, or institutional reporting.

5. Retraction and Withdrawal

  • Clarifications: Issued when additional explanation is needed.
  • Retractions: Required when:
    • Findings are unreliable due to error or misconduct
    • Data is fabricated or falsified
    • Ethics approval missing or fraudulent
    • Plagiarism is confirmed
    • Authorship or peer-review manipulation is proven
  • Retraction Notice Includes:
    • Reason for retraction 
    • Responsible parties (if confirmed)
    • Link to original article
    • Permanently available & indexed
    • Retarction may be on the author's will (arising due to honest error) or proven misconduct (scientific fraud, data fabrication, falsification, or image manipulation) after investigation. 
  •  Withdrawal: Allowed for ethical or procedural reasons before the peer-review process is completed
  • Timeframes:
    • Corrections: 2–4 weeks
    • Retractions: 4–8 weeks after investigation

6. Data Integrity, Transparency & Image Authenticity

  • Authors must retain original raw data for at least 2 years.
  • Raw data must be provided within 10 days upon request.
  • Image manipulation of others work is prohibited.
  • AI-generated content is screened and cannot be credited as an author.
  • Journal conducts plagiarism checks, image analysis, and COI verification.
  • Possible outcomes include: Correction, expression of concern, retraction, future submission bans, or institutional reporting.

7. Citation Manipulation & Ethical Citation Practices

The journal maintains strict ethical standards regarding citations. Citation manipulation, coercion to cite specific works, or inflated self-citation  is prohibited.

  • Purpose & Scope: Citation manipulation includes adding irrelevant references to inflate metrics, coercive citation by editors/reviewers, or excessive self-citation for personal gain. Applies to authors, reviewers, and editors during all stages of manuscript handling.
  • Investigation Process:
    • Editors screen for unusual citation patterns.
    • Cross-check references against manuscript relevance.
    • May ask for justification from authors for questionable citations.
  • Outcomes & Sanctions:
    • Manuscript rejection if manipulation is deliberate or severe.
    • Institutional notification for serious violations.
    • Temporary or permanent submission bans for  intensity/or frequency of offense.
  • Prevention: Authors must cite only relevant works and sites. Editors and reviewers must not request irrelevant citations.

8. Discussion After the Paper Is Published

  • Purpose: The discussion must interpret findings accurately, explain significance, compare with previous work, and justify conclusions without exaggeration.
  • Documentation: All editorial and reviewer decisions regarding discussion integrity are archived permanently.

Possible outcomes include: Revision requirement, editorial rejection, formal correction, or retraction in cases where discussion content is intentionally misleading or scientifically inaccurate.

Caution Sign

Note: This is caution message. Read carefully and follow the instructions. Any attempt to defame the journal, editorial board, or peer-review process through false allegations, fabricated claims, or misleading public statements may result in appropriate legal action in accordance with institutional, national and international laws.