Complaint and Misconduct Policy

The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and handling complaints and allegations of misconduct in accordance with the Core Practices and guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Complaints

The journal regards complaints as valuable opportunities to enhance editorial processes and uphold the standards of publication ethics, defining a complaint as a formal written expression of dissatisfaction relating to editorial procedures, peer review, ethical considerations, or the operational practices of the journal.

1.1 Scope of Complaints

Complaints may relate to:

  • Alleged procedural failures (e.g., unreasonable delays, lack of due process, unprofessional communication).
  • Concerns regarding editorial handling, peer review, or ethical standards.
  • Issues within the responsibility of the journal’s editorial office.

A disagreement with an editorial decision does not constitute a complaint unless there is evidence of procedural irregularity or ethical concern.

1.2 Submission of Complaints

Complaints must be submitted in writing and will be acknowledged upon receipt. The submission must include:

  • Full name and contact details of the complainant.
  • A clear description of the issue, including relevant dates, manuscript ID(s), and correspondence.
  • Supporting documentation or evidence where applicable.

All complaints should be submitted by email to editor@researchmosaic.com

1.3 Complaints Handling Procedure

  • Complaints will be assessed initially by the relevant editorial representative.
  • Where necessary, the matter will be escalated to the Editor-in-Chief for independent review.
  • If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it will be referred to an independent editorial board member or publisher representative.
  • A formal response will normally be provided within a within two working days. If additional time is required, the complainant will be informed accordingly.

All complaints will be handled:

  • Confidentially – information shared only with those directly involved.
  • Impartially – free from conflicts of interest.
  • Proportionately – actions taken in line with the seriousness of the issue.

2. Misconduct

The journal takes allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously and follows COPE flowcharts and best-practice guidance when investigating concerns.

2.1 Definition and Examples of Misconduct

Misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • Plagiarism or unattributed use of another’s work.
  • Data fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation.
  • Redundant or duplicate publication without disclosure.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Authorship disputes or misrepresentation of contribution.
  • Failure to obtain required ethical approvals or informed consent.

All allegations of misconduct must be supported by credible evidence and submitted confidentially to the Editor-in-Chief by email at editor@researchmosaic.com

2.2 Investigation Procedure

  • Allegations will be evaluated objectively and confidentially.
  • The Editor-in-Chief will conduct a preliminary assessment and may request clarification from the author(s) or reviewer(s).
  • Where necessary, the matter may be referred to relevant institutional authorities or an independent committee.
  • Investigations will follow COPE guidance to ensure fairness, neutrality, and due process.

The journal does not conduct full institutional investigations but will cooperate with institutions or regulatory bodies when appropriate.

2.3 Outcomes and Corrective Actions

If misconduct or serious ethical concerns are confirmed, actions may include:

  • Request for correction or clarification.
  • Publication of a correction notice.
  • Issuance of an expression of concern.
  • Retraction of the article.
  • Rejection of the manuscript.
  • Notification of the author’s institution or funding body, where appropriate.

All corrective measures will be transparent, proportionate, and linked clearly to the published record to preserve its integrity.

3. Appeals

Authors or complainants may appeal editorial or misconduct-related decisions by submitting a written appeal that outlines new evidence or procedural concerns, which will be reviewed independently, with a final decision communicated after careful consideration; repeated appeals without new evidence will not be entertained.

4. Confidentiality and Record Retention

The journal maintains secure records of complaints, investigations, and outcomes in accordance with data protection and confidentiality standards, and discloses information only when necessary to resolve the issue, comply with ethical guidance, or meet institutional or legal requirements.

5. Commitment to Ethical Standards

The journal follows: