The editorial board of the interinstitutional thematic scientific collection "Pig Breeding and Agroindustrial Production" adheres to a policy of zero tolerance for violations of academic integrity. The written appeals regarding violations of ethical principles by authors, reviewers, or members of the editorial board of the publication are accepted for consideration. They cover issues related to plagiarism, data falsification, authorship manipulation, conflict of interest, and other violations of the academic integrity according to the COPE protocols.

Complaints are accepted from authors, reviewers, readers or third parties in writing to the journal's official email pigbreeding.org@ukr.net

The applicant must:

• ● clearly indicate your contact details, a link to the publication or material under consideration;
• ● provide a detailed description of the violation with specific evidence of the violations (links to the source of plagiarism, the comparative data tables or documents confirming a hidden conflict of interest).

Anonymous complaints are not considered.

The complaints procedure includes the following steps:

1. Preliminary review

The editor-in-chief or an authorized member of the editorial board shall, within 5 working days, carry out an initial check of the validity of the complaint and make a decision on its further consideration. The applicant shall be notified of the registration of the complaint or refusal to consider it.

The following are subject to verification:

• ● the compliance of a complaint with the journal's policy;
• ● the presence of sufficient grounds for a consideration.

If the complaint concerns an unpublished manuscript, its consideration and publication are suspended until the review is complete.

2. Formation of a working group

For further consideration of the complaint, a temporary working group is created, consisting of:

• ● the editor-in-chief and his deputy;
• ● two members of the editorial board who have no conflict of interest with any of the parties.

It is possible to involve an independent expert in the research profile if additional verification of the materials and facts set forth in the complaint is necessary.

3. Expert review

The editorial board officially requests the authors to provide explanations or source data. The expert committee has the right to request additional materials and explanations, as well as to consult with all interested parties.

Authors must respond within 10 calendar days.

The commission additionally checks the texts for plagiarism, analyzes the reliability of statistical calculations, etc.

All information is confidential until a final decision is made.

4. Decision-making and sanctions

Based on the results of the complaint review, the editorial board makes one of the following decisions:

• ● reject the complaint as unfounded;
• ● correct the minor errors identified;
• ● refuse publication (if significant violations are identified in the manuscript at the review stage);
• ● apply the retraction procedure (if significant violations such as plagiarism, falsifications are identified in an already published article).

The editorial board officially informs about the decision:

• ● the applicant;
• ● the authors of the article;
• ● the management of the institution where the authors work;
• ● scientometric databases and repositories (in case of retraction).

Protection of the rights of the parties

All parties to the conflict have the right to:

• ● receive full information about the complaint review process;
• ● provide explanations and evidence;
• ● appeal the commission's decision within 14 days.

In this case, the editor-in-chief reconsiders the appeal and makes a final decision.