Conflicts of Interest and Complaints Handling

All participants – authors, reviewers, and editors – must openly declare potential conflicts of interest. This ensures the prevention of any influence on scientific findings and the decision-making process regarding publications.

Authors' Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest upon article submission. These may involve financial aspects (grants, honoraria, business ownership, patents) as well as non-financial factors (personal relationships, academic competition, ideological or religious views). All conflicts of interest must be explicitly stated so that readers can assess their potential impact on the authors' objectivity. At the end of each article, a "Conflict of Interest" note will be published; if no conflicts exist, it will state "None declared".

Reviewers' Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must also disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity during evaluation. They are required to inform the editorial office if:

financial or personal ties exist with the authors or organizations associated with the research;

their own ongoing research directly competes with the submitted manuscript;

personal interests or biases (friendship, rivalry, etc.) could influence the impartiality of their evaluation.

In the event of a conflict of interest, reviewers are obligated to decline reviewing the manuscript.

Editors' Conflicts of Interest

Editors must declare conflicts of interest that could affect their ability to make unbiased publication decisions. They must recuse themselves from processing manuscripts in the following cases:

if they have financial, personal, or academic ties with the author or organization that could lead to a conflict of interest;

if they are co-authors of the article or work at the same institution as the author;

if their involvement could be perceived as biased. 

In such cases, the editor must reassign the manuscript to another editor or engage an independent expert. The journal guarantees transparency in disclosing conflicts of interest, and this information will be placed at the end of each published article. All participants in the publication process (authors, reviewers, and editors) are required to comply  with this policy to maintain the integrity of scholarly communication.

Complaints and Ethical Matters

The Editorial Board is committed to responding promptly and constructively to all complaints. Each complaint will be considered individually based on its specificity and complexity, adhering strictly to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Inquiries, suggestions, or complaints should be sent to the journal's official email address. All submissions will be processed within 10 business days. However, complex cases may require additional time for investigation. Complaints must be specific, clear, and provide sufficient evidence demonstrating a breach of publication ethics. Supporting documentation should be attached where applicable. Complaints outside the journal's scope (e.g., personal grievances against authors, editors, or reviewers) will receive a response explaining why the matter falls outside the journal's jurisdiction. The journal will not consider complaints containing offensive, abusive, or threatening language.

Appealing Editorial Decisions

The Editorial Board of the collection of scientific papers "Scientific Research in the Context of Digital Transformations of Modern Society" recognizes authors' right to appeal editorial decisions and aims to ensure a transparent, unbiased evaluation process.

Grounds for appeal include:

rejection of publication;

requests for manuscript revisions deemed unfounded by the author;

suspicions of bias during the peer review process;

other actions by the editorial team that contradict academic ethics.

Appeal Procedure

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office's official email address within 10 calendar days of receiving the decision notification.

An appeal must contain:

the title of the article;

a clear and reasoned explanation of the grounds for appeal;

supplementary materials or evidence supporting the author's position (ifavailable).

Appeal Consideration

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the original decision. If necessary, a re-review by an independent expert will be arranged. Appeals are processed within 10 calendar days, after which a written response detailing the final decision will be sent to the author.

Finality of Decisions

Decisions reached following an appeal review are final and not subject to further appeal.