CONTENT

1. Scope, applicability, and definitions
2. Governing principles
3. Typology of complaints, appeals, and whistleblowing reports
4. Submission channels and formal requirements
5. Complaints about the editorial process and handling times
6. Complaints about peer review conduct and complaints by reviewers
7. Complaints about editors, Guest Editors, editorial board members, and the Publisher
8. Formal appeals against editorial rejection decisions
9. Admissibility criteria for appeals against rejection decisions
10. Appeal examination procedure
11. Probative standards and outcomes of appeals against rejection decisions
12. Appeals against post-publication decisions
13. Whistleblowing: definition, reportable concerns, and authorship disputes
14. Whistleblowing reporting channels
15. Confidentiality, anonymity, and data protection
16. Anti-retaliation provisions and protection of reporters
17. Preliminary screening and triage
18. Investigation procedure
19. Communication with parties and timelines
20. Outcomes, remedial actions, and sanctions
21. Escalation to COPE and other external bodies
22. Vexatious and bad-faith complaints
23. Conflicts of interest in complaint and appeal handling
24. Annual review and cross-references within the Editorial Policy Framework
25. Reference standards

 

1. SCOPE, APPLICABILITY, AND DEFINITIONS

This Complaints, Appeals and Whistleblowing Policy establishes the formal procedures through which any party may submit a complaint, lodge an appeal against an editorial decision, or report suspected research or publication misconduct to European Gynecology and Obstetrics (EGO).

This Policy constitutes an essential component of the Journal's commitment to editorial transparency, procedural fairness, and research integrity.

The Policy applies to:

• authors of manuscripts submitted to, under review at, or published in the Journal, regardless of article type;
• peer reviewers involved in the assessment of any manuscript under consideration;
• members of the Editorial Board, Associate Editors, Section Editors, and the Editor-in-Chief;
• Guest Editors of special issues and supplements;
• the Editorial Office and operational staff of Edikta S.r.l.;
• Edikta S.r.l. in its capacity as Publisher;
• any third party - including researchers, research institutions, funding bodies, and members of the public - who has reason to raise a concern about scientific content published in or submitted to the Journal, or about the editorial or publishing conduct of the Journal.

This Policy, in operational terms, develops the provisions of the Peer Review Policy (Section 16) on appeals against editorial rejection decisions and the Corrections and Retractions Policy (Section 20) on appeals against post-publication decisions. It also provides the operational procedure for authorship disputes referred to in the Authorship Policy (Section 13). In the event of conflict between this Policy and any other document of the editorial policy framework, this Policy governs with respect to complaints, appeals, and whistleblowing reports.

This Policy does not apply to complaints that are the subject of ongoing judicial or administrative proceedings before a competent authority. The Journal reserves the right to suspend or discontinue the examination of a complaint or appeal when the matter is simultaneously under investigation by that authority.

Definitions. For this Policy, the following definitions apply:

• 'Working days' means business days in Italy, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Italian national public holidays (1 January, 6 January, Easter Monday, 25 April, 1 May, 2 June, 15 August, 1 November, 8 December, 25 December, 26 December), as well as the civic holiday of the city of Rome (29 June).
• 'Calendar days' means consecutive days including weekends and public holidays.
• 'Complainant or appellant' means the person who submits a complaint, appeal, or report under this Policy.
• 'Respondent' means the person or entity against whom a complaint or report is directed.
• 'Case file' means the complete documented record of a submission and its examination, retained in the Journal's editorial management system.

2. GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

The Journal is committed to handling all complaints, appeals, and whistleblowing reports in accordance with the following principles:

Impartiality. Every submission is examined objectively, without prejudice toward any party and without consideration of the professional standing, institutional affiliation, gender, nationality, or career stage of the complainant or the respondent.

Independence. Procedures involving a conflict of interest on the part of any individual responsible for handling a submission are reassigned to a conflict-free person. No submission may be adjudicated by a person who was directly involved in the decision being challenged or in the events giving rise to the complaint.

Timeliness. The Journal is committed to acknowledging all submissions within 5 working days and to resolving all actionable complaints and appeals within the timelines established in this Policy.

Transparency. The existence of this Policy and the channels for submitting complaints, appeals, and reports are publicly communicated on the Journal's website. Complainants and appellants are informed of the outcome and of the principal reasons at a minimum procedural level sufficient to ensure understanding of the basis of the decision, to the extent compatible with confidentiality obligations.

Fairness. Every respondent is given an adequate and documented opportunity to respond to any allegation before a final determination is made. No adverse finding is issued without prior notification to the respondent and an opportunity to provide a substantive response.

Confidentiality. All parties to a complaint, appeal, or whistleblowing report are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the proceedings, to the extent compatible with the Journal's obligations to act on the outcome of any investigation.

Non-retaliation. No person who submits a good-faith complaint, appeal, or whistleblowing report will be subjected to any form of retaliation, sanction, or professional disadvantage as a consequence of such submission. This commitment is developed in Section 16.

Proportionality. The measures taken in response to any established violation are proportionate to the severity of the violation, to the degree of intent demonstrated, and to the consequences for the scientific record and for the parties involved.

Consistency with COPE Core Practices. All procedures under this Policy are applied in a manner consistent with the Core Practices and Flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Unresolved cases of sufficient complexity may be escalated to COPE for advice in accordance with Section 21.

3. TYPOLOGY OF COMPLAINTS, APPEALS, AND WHISTLEBLOWING REPORTS

For this Policy, the following typology applies. Each category is subject to distinct submission requirements, triage criteria, and investigation procedures.

Category A - Complaints about the editorial process. Formal concerns about the conduct of the editorial and peer review process, including excessive delays, failure to acknowledge submission, inadequate communication, discourteous or discriminatory conduct by editors or reviewers, or non-compliance with the Journal's published editorial policies. Category A complaints may be submitted by authors, reviewers, or any party with a direct and documented interest in the conduct of the process.

Category B - Appeals against editorial rejection decisions. Formal challenges to editorial decisions to reject a manuscript following peer review. Category B appeals are restricted to the authors of the rejected manuscript and are governed by Sections 9 through 11, which develop the provisions of the Peer Review Policy, Section 16.

Category C - Appeals against post-publication decisions. Formal challenges to decisions to retract, remove, or issue an expression of concern in relation to a published article, or to apply any other corrective measure. Category C appeals are restricted to the authors of the affected article and are governed by Section 12, which develops the provisions of the Corrections and Retractions Policy, Section 20.

Category D - Complaints about editorial personnel and the Publisher. Formal allegations of unprofessional conduct, breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflict of interest, or other ethical violations by members of the Editorial Board, Associate Editors, Section Editors, Guest Editors, the Editor-in-Chief, or Edikta S.r.l. in its capacity as Publisher. Category D complaints may be submitted by authors, reviewers, or any party with direct knowledge of the alleged conduct.

Category E - Whistleblowing reports. Formal or informal reports of suspected research misconduct, publication misconduct, or systemic integrity violations affecting published or submitted articles, including but not limited to: data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, authorship fraud, undisclosed conflicts of interest, paper mill involvement, or manipulation of the peer review process. Category E reports may be submitted by any person, including anonymously, in accordance with Sections 13 through 15.

Category F - Authorship disputes. Reports of disagreements between named or prospective co-authors regarding authorship entitlement, contribution attribution, or inclusion or exclusion from the author list, where such disputes do not involve an allegation of fraudulent intent. Authorship disputes that do involve an allegation of fraudulent authorship practices (ghost authorship, gift authorship, coerced authorship, or identity fraud) are processed as Category E reports. Category F reports may be submitted by any named author, by a person who claims to have been excluded from authorship, or by the corresponding author on behalf of the author group. The procedure for Category F reports is established in Section 13.

4. SUBMISSION CHANNELS AND FORMAL REQUIREMENTS

All complaints, appeals, and whistleblowing reports must be directed to the following channels, according to the category of submission:

• Category A, B, C, D complaints and appeals: submitted by email to the Editorial Direction at the official address published on the Journal's website, with the subject line specifying the category of submission and, where applicable, the manuscript reference number assigned by the editorial platform.
• Category E and F reports: submitted by email to the designated confidential address [to be completed upon publication of this Policy], or through the confidential reporting form available on the Journal's website. Where the reporter has grounds to believe that the Editorial Direction cannot manage the report impartially, the report may be addressed directly to the Publisher at info@egojournal.eu

Requirements common to all submissions. All complaints, appeals, and reports must:

• identify the category of submission and the nature of the concern with sufficient specificity to allow preliminary assessment;
• include, where applicable, the manuscript reference number, the DOI of any published article, or any other identifier that allows the subject of the submission to be traced;
• be submitted by the corresponding author in the case of Category B and Category C submissions; all co-authors are required to agree to the submission of a Category B or Category C appeal, and the corresponding author warrants such agreement at the time of submission; joint submissions by multiple co-authors are accepted;
• include supporting documentation where it exists; the absence of documentation does not preclude submission but may affect the outcome of the triage assessment.

Anonymous submissions are accepted for Categories A, D, E, and F, provided that the information meets the evidentiary threshold required for procedural fairness in the examination of the submission. Category B and Category C submissions require identification of the corresponding author and the consent of all co-authors.

Submission timelines. The following timelines apply:

• Category B appeals: within 30 calendar days from the date of communication of the rejection decision;
• Category C appeals: within 30 calendar days from the date of communication of the post-publication decision;
• Category A and D complaints: within 90 calendar days from the event giving rise to the complaint, unless exceptional circumstances justify a later submission;
• Category E and F reports: no time limit applies; early reporting is encouraged in the interest of the scientific record and of fair resolution of disputes.

Submissions received outside the applicable time limits are assessed for exceptional circumstances at the triage stage. The Journal reserves the right to decline submissions that are manifestly time-barred and for which no exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

5. COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE EDITORIAL PROCESS AND HANDLING TIMES

Authors and other parties may submit a Category A complaint where they consider that the editorial management of their submission has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the Journal's published policies or with established standards of good editorial practice. Admissible grounds for a Category A complaint include:

• failure to acknowledge receipt of a submission within 10 working days from the date of submission;
• absence of substantive communication from the Editorial Direction for a period exceeding the maximum handling time established in the Peer Review Policy (30 to 45 calendar days for the first editorial decision from the date of completion of the technical compliance check);
• unexplained withdrawal of a manuscript from the review process without communication of reasons;
• failure to comply with the timelines established in the Peer Review Policy for the appeal procedure (30 calendar days for communication of the appeal outcome);
• conduct of peer review by a reviewer with an undisclosed and objectively identifiable conflict of interest with the authors or the subject matter of the manuscript;
• discourteous, offensive, or discriminatory conduct on the part of the Editorial Office or of any reviewer in written communications directed to the authors;
• failure to apply the Journal's declared editorial policies in the handling of a specific manuscript;
• breach of the double-anonymized review model established in the Peer Review Policy, resulting in disclosure of author identities to reviewers or of reviewer identities to authors;
• issuance of a press release, news item, or public communication by the Journal or the Publisher that materially misrepresents the content, conclusions, or significance of a published article, in violation of the editorial independence commitments established in the Editorial Policy Statement (Section 6).

Category A complaints are received by the Editorial Direction and, where the complaint concerns the conduct of the Editor-in-Chief or of the Editorial Direction itself, forwarded to the Publisher for initial assessment in accordance with Section 7. The procedure and timelines applicable to Category A complaints are established in Sections 17 through 20 of this Policy.

6. COMPLAINTS ABOUT PEER REVIEW CONDUCT AND COMPLAINTS BY REVIEWERS

Authors' complaints about reviewer conduct. Authors may submit a Category A complaint specifically addressing the conduct of an individual peer reviewer, independently of or in conjunction with a Category B appeal. Admissible grounds include:

• a review that contains statements that are manifestly unscientific, wholly unrelated to the content of the manuscript, offensive, or discriminatory on any ground including gender, nationality, affiliation, or career stage;
• a review that discloses confidential information about the manuscript to third parties in violation of the reviewer's duty of confidentiality established in the Peer Review Policy;
• a review that reproduces, without authorization or attribution, text, data, or ideas from the reviewed manuscript;
• a review that appears to have been prepared using the manuscript content as input to a generative artificial intelligence system without the authorization required under the Artificial Intelligence Policy (Section 12);
• documented evidence that the reviewer had a material and undisclosed conflict of interest with the authors, the institution, or the subject matter of the manuscript;
• documented evidence that the review was conducted by a person other than the reviewer to whom the manuscript was assigned (identity fraud in peer review).

A complaint about reviewer conduct filed separately from a Category B appeal does not, in itself, constitute grounds for reinstatement of the manuscript or commissioning of a fresh review. The outcome may, however, constitute grounds for a Category B appeal where the deficiencies identified satisfy the admissibility criteria established in Section 9. A Category A complaint about reviewer conduct and a Category B appeal are not mutually exclusive and may be pursued simultaneously.

Complaints by reviewers about author conduct. Peer reviewers who experience or witness conduct by authors that is directed at them in the context of a review assignment may submit a Category A complaint to the Editorial Direction. Admissible grounds include:

• attempts by authors to identify the reviewer through social engineering, indirect inquiry, or misuse of the editorial platform;
• direct contact by an author with a reviewer outside the editorial platform, aimed at influencing the review outcome;
• harassment, threats, or abuse by an author directed at a reviewer following communication of a decision;
• allegations by an author that a reviewer has plagiarised from a reviewed manuscript, made without a reasonable factual basis;
• any other conduct by authors that compromises the confidentiality, integrity, or independence of the peer review process.

The Editorial Direction receives reviewer complaints and, where there is prima facie evidence of a serious violation, investigates them in accordance with Section 18. Where appropriate, the matter is referred to the respondent's institution. The identity of the reviewer-complainant is not disclosed to the author without the reviewer's express consent.

7. COMPLAINTS ABOUT EDITORS, GUEST EDITORS, EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS, AND THE PUBLISHER

Any person with direct knowledge of an ethical violation, breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflict of interest, abuse of editorial authority, or unprofessional conduct on the part of an editor, Guest Editor, editorial board member, or the Publisher may submit a Category D complaint.

Complaints directed against Associate Editors, Section Editors, or members of the Editorial Board are addressed to the Editor-in-Chief in the first instance. Where the complaint provides prima facie evidence of a serious violation, the Editor-in-Chief initiates a formal investigation in accordance with Section 18 and, where applicable, applies the disciplinary provisions of the Editorial Board Charter.

Complaints directed against Guest Editors are addressed to the Editor-in-Chief in the first instance. Guest Editors operate under the direct oversight of the Editor-in-Chief and are subject to the same ethical standards as regular editorial board members. Where the complaint provides prima facie evidence of a serious violation - including conflict of interest in the selection of reviewers for a special issue, undisclosed commercial relationships with authors, or breach of peer review confidentiality - the Editor-in-Chief suspends the Guest Editor's editorial authority over the affected manuscripts and initiates an investigation in accordance with Section 18. Where the Guest Editor is found to have committed a serious violation, their appointment is terminated and the Editor-in-Chief assumes direct responsibility for the affected manuscripts.

Complaints directed against the Editor-in-Chief are addressed to the Publisher and are handled independently of the Editorial Direction. The Publisher's role in this context is limited to oversight of the process and does not extend to editorial decision-making. The Publisher appoints an independent investigator or assessment committee, which may include an external expert unaffiliated with the Journal, to examine the complaint and issue a recommendation. The final determination on any editorial matter arising from the investigation rests with the independent investigator or committee, not with the Publisher. Where the investigation concludes that a serious violation has occurred, the Publisher acts in accordance with the provisions of the Editorial Board Charter governing the sanction or removal of the Editor-in-Chief and notifies the European Society of Gynecology, in its capacity as the scientific society that holds the editorial brand.

Complaints directed against the Publisher are addressed to the Editor-in-Chief in the first instance. Where the complaint concerns a matter within the scope of the publishing agreement between the Publisher and the European Society of Gynecology, the Editor-in-Chief may escalate the matter to the European Society of Gynecology. Where the Editor-in-Chief considers that the complaint cannot be managed without compromising the independence of the Editorial Direction, the matter may be referred to COPE for advice in accordance with Section 21.

All Category D complaints are handled with strict confidentiality, with respect for both the complainant and the respondent throughout the investigation process.

8. FORMAL APPEALS AGAINST EDITORIAL REJECTION DECISIONS

Authors whose manuscript has been rejected following completion of at least one full round of peer review may submit a Category B formal appeal against the rejection decision. Manuscripts rejected at the desk review stage (pre-screening or editorial assessment conducted before assignment to peer review) are not eligible for a Category B appeal, unless the grounds of the appeal allege a specific procedural violation in the conduct of the desk review that falls within the admissibility criteria of Section 9, paragraph (d).

A Category B appeal does not constitute a resubmission of the manuscript and does not create an obligation on the Journal to commission additional peer review. Where an appeal is pending, simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to another journal is not permitted. Authors who wish to submit the manuscript elsewhere must first formally withdraw the appeal; submission to another journal without prior formal withdrawal of the appeal constitutes a breach of the Journal's submission integrity requirements and may result in disqualification of the appeal.

All co-authors must agree to the submission of a Category B appeal. The corresponding author warrants such agreement at the time of submission. If co-authors disagree about whether to appeal, the matter is resolved between the authors before submission; the Journal does not adjudicate internal author disagreements regarding the appeal decision.

A single Category B appeal per manuscript is permitted. Where the appeal is dismissed, the decision is final and no further appeal of the same rejection decision is admissible. Where the appeal is accepted and the process is reopened in accordance with Section 11, the subsequent outcome of the reopened process is final. It does not itself constitute a new editorial decision subject to a further Category B appeal. Reopening of the process following a successful appeal, or reconsideration prompted by new evidence as set out in the Peer Review Policy (Section 16), is not classified as a new appeal for this limit.

9. ADMISSIBILITY CRITERIA FOR APPEALS AGAINST REJECTION DECISIONS

A Category B appeal is considered admissible when it presents at least one of the following grounds:

• (a) New substantial scientific evidence. The appeal identifies new empirical, methodological, or interpretive evidence that was not available at the time of the original submission and that, if taken into account, would materially affect the assessment of the manuscript. Evidence that was available at the time of submission but was not presented does not constitute new evidence for this criterion.
• (b) Manifest technical error. The appeal identifies a specific and demonstrable technical error in the assessment of one or more reviewers that materially undermined the evaluation of a core aspect of the manuscript. A difference of scientific opinion does not constitute a technical error.
• (c) Undisclosed conflict of interest. The appeal provides documented evidence of a material and undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of a reviewer or the Associate Editor who handled the manuscript, of a nature sufficient to compromise the impartiality of the assessment.
• (d) Procedural violation. The appeal identifies a specific procedural violation by the Journal in the conduct of the review process, such as a breach of the double-anonymized review model, a material deviation from the timelines established in the Peer Review Policy, or a failure to apply the review criteria outlined in the Journal's guidelines.

The following grounds do not constitute admissible grounds for a Category B appeal and are screened as inadmissible at the triage stage:

• disagreement with the editorial judgment of priority, scope, or significance of the manuscript;
• personal or emotional arguments not supported by specific evidence;
• repetition of scientific arguments already considered and addressed in the original review process;
• general dissatisfaction with the tone or content of the reviewers' comments, without identification of a specific deficiency meeting the criteria above.

Appeals found inadmissible at triage are not referred for full examination. The author is notified of the inadmissibility finding within 10 working days from receipt, with indication of the grounds.

10. APPEAL EXAMINATION PROCEDURE

The Editor-in-Chief examines admissible Category B appeals. Where the appeal raises issues concerning the conduct or impartiality of the Editor-in-Chief, or where the Editor-in-Chief in their sole judgment considers it appropriate to ensure the independence of the examination, the appeal is assigned to an Associate Editor who was not involved in the original handling of the manuscript.

The examining editor may:

• decide on the appeal based on the documentation provided by the appellant and the editorial file, without further consultation;
• seek a complementary opinion from a member of the Editorial Board or from an external expert not involved in the original review;
• commission a new independent review of the manuscript, in accordance with the probative standards established in Section 11.

The examining editor must reach a decision and communicate it to the appellant within 30 calendar days from the date of acknowledgment of the admissible appeal, unless the appeal raises issues of research or publication misconduct that require initiation of a formal investigation under Section 18, in which case the investigation timelines established in Section 19 apply and supersede the 30-day limit. Where the examination requires consultation with external parties but does not trigger a formal investigation, the 30 days may be extended by a further 15 calendar days; the author is notified of the extension and of the expected date of the decision.

All communications in the context of a Category B appeal are conducted through the editorial platform or through the official designated email address. Communications from the appellant during the appeal must be directed to the designated appeal contact and not to individual editors. Submissions of new information by the appellant during the examination period are accepted only where they are directly responsive to a request by the examining editor.

11. PROBATIVE STANDARDS AND OUTCOMES OF APPEALS AGAINST REJECTION DECISIONS

The outcome of a Category B appeal is determined in accordance with the following probative standards, which develop the provisions established in the Peer Review Policy (Section 16):

Confirmation of the original rejection decision. Applied as the default outcome in the absence of evidence sufficient to satisfy the admissibility criteria, or where the evidence presented, while admissible, does not reach the threshold required to alter the editorial assessment. The appeal is closed and the decision is final.

Complementary review. Applied where the appeal identifies a specific assessment aspect not adequately covered in the original review, without this deficiency invalidating the overall validity of the review process. The complementary review is entrusted to a new independent reviewer; the overall editorial assessment takes into account all reviews. Complementary review does not guarantee acceptance.

Full new peer review. Applied where the appeal documents a material and undisclosed conflict of interest of one of the original reviewers, or technical errors of a severity sufficient to invalidate the original assessment. The manuscript is assigned to reviewers different from those involved in the original process.

Acceptance of the appeal with reopening of the process. Applied where the appeal documents a procedural violation of the Journal in the conduct of the original review process, or presents new decisive scientific evidence. The process is reopened to the phase appropriate to the identified violation. The outcome of the reopened process is subject to the Journal's standard editorial criteria and is not subject to a further Category B appeal.

Acceptance of a Category B appeal does not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript. A manuscript that proceeds to further assessment following a successful appeal remains subject to the Journal's standard editorial criteria.

12. APPEALS AGAINST POST-PUBLICATION DECISIONS

Authors of articles that have been retracted, removed, subjected to an expression of concern, or to which another corrective measure has been applied, may submit a Category C formal appeal against the relevant decision within 30 calendar days from the date of communication of the decision.

The submission of a Category C appeal does not suspend the publication of the corrective act that has already been decided and communicated, nor the public notice of the corrective action, in accordance with the provisions of the Corrections and Retractions Policy. Where the corrective act has not yet been published online at the date of submission of the appeal, the Editor-in-Chief may, in exceptional circumstances and at their sole discretion, place publication on hold for a period not exceeding 14 calendar days pending the preliminary screening of the appeal. The affected article carries an interim editorial note indicating that a corrective action is under review.

All co-authors must agree to the submission of a Category C appeal. The corresponding author warrants such agreement at the time of submission.

Admissibility criteria for Category C appeals correspond to those applicable to Category B appeals (Section 9, paragraphs a through d), adapted to the post-publication context. In particular:

• appeals based on the claim that the corrective act was issued without due process or without adequate notification to the authors are examined with priority;
• appeals based on the claim that the evidence relied upon by the Editorial Direction is factually incorrect are examined with reference to all available evidence and, where appropriate, with the involvement of an external expert;
• appeals that raise issues of conflict of interest in the investigation process leading to the corrective act are examined independently by a person who was not involved in the original investigation.

If a Category C appeal is upheld and the corrective act is found to have been issued in error or in violation of procedural fairness, the corrective act is formally withdrawn and replaced by a notice of withdrawal, published with its own DOI and permanently linked to the original article and to the withdrawn corrective act, in accordance with the Corrections and Retractions Policy.

The timelines and communication procedures established for Category B appeals (Sections 10 and 19) apply mutatis mutandis to Category C appeals, with the following modification: where the corrective act concerns an article with immediate implications for patient safety or public health, all timelines are accelerated. The Publisher is notified immediately upon receipt of the appeal.

13. WHISTLEBLOWING: DEFINITION, REPORTABLE CONCERNS, AND AUTHORSHIP DISPUTES

Whistleblowing, for this Policy, is defined as the voluntary disclosure by any person - including anonymously - of suspected or known instances of research misconduct, publication misconduct, or systemic violations of scientific integrity, whether in relation to submitted, under-review, or published materials associated with the Journal.

Reportable concerns include, in a non-exhaustive manner:

(a) Research misconduct: fabrication of data or results; falsification of data, research materials, equipment, or processes, including manipulation of images or visual representations to a degree that materially alters the interpretation of the results; plagiarism in any form, including text recycling without appropriate disclosure.

(b) Publication misconduct: duplicate, redundant, or salami-sliced publication without appropriate cross-referencing and disclosure; undisclosed simultaneous submission to multiple journals; ghost authorship; gift, honorary, or coerced authorship; incomplete or misleading disclosure of authors' contributions; undisclosed conflicts of interest on the part of any author, reviewer, or editor; misrepresentation of funding sources or funding amounts.

(c) Peer review manipulation: provision of false or fabricated reviewer identities or contact details; manipulation of the reviewer assignment process; collusive peer review arrangements; unauthorized use of manuscript content during the review process; disclosure of confidential review materials to third parties.

(d) Paper mill involvement: submission of manuscripts produced by third-party commercial services for the purpose of generating academic publications, regardless of whether the named authors performed any substantive research activity.

(e) Systematic integrity violations: coordinated manipulation of citation counts or bibliometric indicators; operation of citation rings; failure to register a clinical trial in a recognized registry before the commencement of participant enrolment; systematic breaches of research ethics approval requirements; misrepresentation of ethical approval status.

(f) Violations specific to the Journal: undisclosed AI use in violation of the Artificial Intelligence Policy; violations of the Editorial Board Charter or Guest Editor agreements by a board or panel member; material failure of the Editorial Direction to apply the Journal's published policies; conflicts of interest affecting the integrity of the publication record of the Journal.

Whistleblowing reports that concern solely an expression of opinion about the quality, scope, or significance of a published article, without alleging a specific integrity violation, are outside the scope of this Policy and should be directed to the Letters to the Editor channel.

Authorship disputes (Category F). Authorship disputes that do not involve allegations of fraudulent conduct are managed under a dedicated pathway distinct from the whistleblowing procedure. Upon receipt of a Category F report, the Editorial Direction applies the following procedure:

• Pre-publication disputes: the editorial process is suspended immediately upon receipt of a credible notice of dispute. All listed authors are notified and invited to respond within 21 calendar days. If the dispute is not resolved by agreement within 30 calendar days, the matter is formally referred to the institutional authorities of the corresponding author or of the institution with primary jurisdiction. The process does not resume until the dispute is resolved or the referring institution provides a formal determination. An expression of concern is issued if the institutional investigation is inconclusive within 90 calendar days or if the institution is unresponsive.
• Post-publication disputes: the corresponding author and all listed authors are notified and invited to respond within 30 calendar days. The matter is referred to the institution(s) of affiliation for a formal investigation. An expression of concern is issued if the institutional investigation is inconclusive, the institution is unresponsive by the deadline, or public notice is required to protect the scientific record, in conformity with the Corrections and Retractions Policy. The matter is escalated to COPE if institutional channels prove inadequate.

Where a Category F dispute involves a claim that the exclusion of a contributor from the author list was deliberate, coercive, or motivated by discriminatory intent, the dispute is reclassified as a Category E report and investigated accordingly.

14. WHISTLEBLOWING REPORTING CHANNELS

Whistleblowing and Category F reports may be submitted through the following channels:

Primary channel (editorial): by email to the Editorial Direction at the designated confidential address published on the Journal's website, with subject line: 'Confidential: Integrity Concern - [article DOI or manuscript reference number if applicable]'.

Secondary channel (publisher): where the reporter considers that the Editorial Direction is implicated in the concern or is not in a position to manage it impartially, the report may be addressed directly to the Publisher, at the confidential integrity address designated on the Publisher's website.

Tertiary channel (COPE): any person may seek informal advice from COPE about a concern, independently of this Policy and of any formal report to the Journal or the Publisher. COPE does not investigate individual cases but may advise on the appropriate course of action.

Reports should include, to the extent possible:

• a description of the concern with sufficient specificity to allow preliminary assessment;
• the DOI or reference number of the article or manuscript concerned, if applicable;
• any documentary evidence, such as screenshots, raw data files, comparative publications, or metadata extracts, that supports the concern;
• contact details of the reporter, if the reporter is willing to be contacted for further clarification.

The absence of documentary evidence at the time of submission does not preclude acceptance of the report for triage, provided that the concern is described with sufficient specificity.

15. CONFIDENTIALITY, ANONYMITY, AND DATA PROTECTION

Confidentiality of the reporter. The identity of all reporters, whether named or pseudonymous, is treated as strictly confidential from the point of receipt. The identity of the reporter is not disclosed to the respondent or to any third party without the express and documented consent of the reporter, except where disclosure is required by a competent judicial or regulatory authority pursuant to a binding legal obligation.

Anonymous reports. Anonymous whistleblowing reports are accepted and processed provided that the information submitted meets the evidentiary threshold required for procedural fairness in the examination of the submission, meaning that the report must be specific enough to allow the Editorial Direction to identify the subject matter and to notify the respondent of the nature of the concern with sufficient particularity. The Journal acknowledges that anonymity may be the only condition under which a reporter is willing or able to come forward. Where an anonymous report provides sufficient evidence for a preliminary assessment, it proceeds to investigation in accordance with Section 18. The Journal is unable to communicate the outcome of an investigation to an anonymous reporter unless a confidential return contact address has been provided.

Confidentiality of the proceedings. All persons involved in the examination of a submission under this Policy - including members of the Editorial Direction, the Publisher, any external expert, and any advisory committee member - are required to maintain strict confidentiality with respect to the proceedings. Information about active proceedings is not disclosed publicly until the investigation is concluded and a final determination has been made, except where the Corrections and Retractions Policy requires an interim public notice.

Sharing of information with other editors and institutions. In accordance with the COPE guidance on sharing information among editors-in-chief about possible misconduct, the Editorial Direction may, where deemed strictly necessary to investigate suspected misconduct affecting multiple journals, share limited and factual information with editors-in-chief of other journals. Such sharing is limited to the minimum necessary information, is conducted with appropriate confidentiality markings, is documented in the case file, and does not include the reporter's identity.

Data protection. The processing of personal data in the context of complaints, appeals, and whistleblowing reports is governed by EU Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) and by the Italian Personal Data Protection Code (Legislative Decree 196/2003, as amended by Legislative Decree 101/2018). Personal data collected under this Policy are processed exclusively for the purposes of examining and resolving the relevant submission. They are retained for the period necessary to discharge all related obligations, and in any case for a minimum of 10 years from the closure of the proceedings. Data subjects are entitled to the rights established by the GDPR, including the rights of access, rectification, and, where applicable, restriction of processing, subject to the Journal's retention obligations.

16. ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISIONS AND PROTECTION OF REPORTERS

The Journal and the Publisher are unequivocally committed to ensuring that no person who submits a good-faith complaint, appeal, or whistleblowing report under this Policy is subjected to any form of retaliation, sanction, or professional disadvantage as a consequence of such submission. This commitment is consistent with the obligations established by EU Directive 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law and its transposition into Italian law by Legislative Decree 24/2023. This commitment extends to all of the following, which are explicitly prohibited:

• rejection of manuscripts submitted by the reporter, or by persons associated with the reporter, on grounds related to the submission of the report;
• exclusion from reviewer pools or editorial board positions on grounds related to the submission of the report;
• adverse treatment in any editorial procedure involving the reporter, including assignment of biased reviewers;
• disclosure of the identity of the reporter in a manner likely to cause professional or personal harm;
• any other form of professional or reputational harm connected to the submission of a good-faith report.

Definition of good faith. A submission is made in good faith when the reporter genuinely and reasonably believes that the concern reported may constitute a real violation, even if the investigation ultimately determines that no violation occurred. Good faith excludes only deliberate misrepresentation and the knowing fabrication of concerns for purposes of harassment or competitive advantage.

Where retaliation is alleged, any person who believes that they have been subjected to retaliation as a consequence of a submission under this Policy may report the alleged retaliation to the Publisher and, if the Publisher is implicated, directly to COPE. Allegations of retaliation are treated as a Category D complaint and investigated with priority.

Responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is personally responsible for ensuring that the procedures of the Journal are not used, directly or indirectly, to disadvantage any person who has submitted in good faith under this Policy, and is required to report to the Publisher any instance in which the protection of a reporter appears to be at risk.

17. PRELIMINARY SCREENING AND TRIAGE

All submissions received under this Policy are subject to a preliminary screening within 5 working days from receipt. The triage serves to:

• acknowledge receipt and confirm registration of the submission in the Journal's case file system;
• assess whether the submission falls within the scope of this Policy and is directed to the appropriate channel;
• assess the admissibility of Category B and Category C appeals against the criteria established in Sections 9 and 12;
• assess the seriousness and specificity of Category E and F reports to determine the appropriate level of response;
• identify any conflicts of interest affecting the persons responsible for the triage or the subsequent examination, and arrange reassignment where necessary.

Triage outcomes. Following preliminary screening, the submission is classified as follows:

Admissible and referred for investigation: the submission satisfies the applicable criteria; a case file is opened and the examination proceeds in accordance with Section 18.

Admissible in part: the submission raises concerns of different types or different levels of gravity; the case is bifurcated, and each element is processed according to its applicable procedure.

Inadmissible: the submission does not satisfy the applicable criteria or falls outside the scope of this Policy; the complainant or appellant is notified with reasons within 10 working days from receipt.

Outside scope - redirection: the submission is more appropriately addressed through another Journal procedure (e.g., Letters to the Editor, a correction submission, or the Peer Review Policy SLA complaint mechanism); the complainant is notified and redirected.

Where the submission raises immediate concerns about the integrity of published content with potential implications for patient safety or public health, the Editorial Direction may take interim protective measures before completion of the triage, subject to immediate notification of the Publisher.

18. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

Submissions classified as admissible and referred for investigation are managed in accordance with the following sequential procedure:

Step 1 - Case assignment. The Editorial Direction designates an investigator or investigation team. The investigator may be the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, an independent expert, or a designated committee, selected based on the nature and gravity of the concern and the availability of a conflict-free person. An investigator with a direct conflict of interest with any party must recuse themselves in accordance with Section 23.

Step 2 - Notification of the respondent. Where the concern is directed against a specific person or group, the respondent is notified of the submission's existence and its principal grounds, with sufficient information to allow a substantive response. The respondent is not entitled to the reporter's identity, nor to access to documents that would disclose it, except to the minimum extent required for procedural fairness.

Step 3 - Collection of evidence. The investigator collects all relevant evidence, including submitted documentation, the manuscript or article under examination, peer review records, editorial correspondence, and any additional evidence requested from the parties or identified through independent inquiry. Evidence may include: original data files, electronic metadata, statistical reports, plagiarism detection outputs, image forensic analyses, or external expert opinions.

Step 4 - Respondent's response. The respondent is given a period of not less than 14 and not more than 30 calendar days to provide a written response to the evidence and allegations. Extensions may be granted in exceptional and documented circumstances.

Step 5 - Complainant timeout. Where the Editorial Direction requires additional information from the complainant or appellant and no response is received within 30 calendar days of the request, the submission may be treated as provisionally withdrawn. The complainant is notified of the provisional withdrawal and is given a further 14 calendar days to confirm their intention to proceed. If no confirmation is received within that period, the submission is closed, and the case file is archived. A complainant whose submission has been closed under this provision may reopen it within 60 calendar days by providing the requested information and demonstrating that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control.

Step 6 - Consultation with the respondent's institution. Where the investigation identifies prima facie evidence of a serious research misconduct violation attributable to a researcher, the Editorial Direction may, in accordance with the COPE guidance on cooperation between journals and research institutions, notify the relevant institution and request that it initiate its own investigation. Please report the outcome to the Journal within a reasonable period.

Step 7 - Determination. Based on all evidence and responses collected, the investigator reaches a determination on the balance of the available evidence and formulates a recommendation. In cases of exceptional complexity or sensitivity, the Publisher may appoint an independent advisory committee to review the determination before it is finalized. The standard of proof applied is the balance of probabilities.

19. COMMUNICATION WITH PARTIES AND TIMELINES

The following timelines govern communications under this Policy:

Stage	Timeline
Acknowledgment of receipt	5 working days from receipt
Triage outcome communicated to complainant or appellant	10 working days from receipt
Full investigation initiated	Within 20 working days from triage conclusion
Response period for respondent	14 to 30 calendar days
Complainant timeout - additional information request	30 calendar days (+ 14-day confirmation period)
Investigation determination	Within 60 calendar days from initiation (extendable to 90 in complex cases)
Outcome communicated to complainant or appellant	Within 5 working days from determination
Category B and C appeal outcome (standard)	Within 30 calendar days from receipt of admissible appeal
Category B appeal outcome (misconduct investigation triggered)	Investigation timelines of this section apply

Where an investigation requires involvement of the respondent's institution, the timelines above apply to the Journal's internal process. The conclusion of an institutional investigation may result in a revision of the Journal's determination where new material evidence emerges.

All communications to complainants, appellants, and respondents are issued in writing and are retained as part of the case file. The Journal does not provide interim progress updates more frequently than every 30 calendar days, except in urgent cases where the matter affects patient safety or the integrity of the scientific record, in which case the Editorial Direction communicates proactively and without delay.

20. OUTCOMES, REMEDIAL ACTIONS, AND SANCTIONS

Based on the determination reached at the conclusion of the investigation, the following outcomes and remedial actions are available, and may be applied individually or cumulatively:

Outcomes for Category A and D complaints:

• formal acknowledgment and apology to the complainant;
• correction of the procedural deficiency identified;
• issuance of editorial guidance to the persons responsible for the deficiency;
• formal warning to an editor, Guest Editor, reviewer, or staff member;
• removal of a reviewer from the Journal's reviewer pool, temporarily or permanently;
• suspension or termination of a Guest Editor appointment;
• suspension or removal of an editorial board member, in accordance with the Editorial Board Charter;
• notation in the personnel record of the person responsible, for future performance assessments.

Outcomes for Category B and C appeals:

• confirmation of the original decision;
• commissioning of complementary or full new peer review;
• reopening of the editorial process from the appropriate phase;
• publication of a corrective measure or withdrawal of a corrective act, in accordance with the CREC Policy.

Outcomes for Category E whistleblowing reports:

• closure without further action, where the investigation does not identify prima facie evidence of a violation;
• request for correction of the article, in accordance with the Corrections and Retractions Policy;
• issuance of an expression of concern as an interim public notice pending the completion of an investigation;
• retraction of the article, in accordance with the Corrections and Retractions Policy;
• removal of the article in exceptional circumstances meeting the criteria established in the Corrections and Retractions Policy;
• notification of the respondent's institution and, where relevant, of funding bodies;
• imposition of a ban from submission, review, or editorial roles for a defined period;
• referral to COPE for formal advice or case registration;
• referral to competent national or international regulatory authorities, including clinical trial registries, where the violation affects registered research.

Outcomes for Category F authorship disputes:

• mediated resolution between the authors, with amendment of the author list where agreed;
• referral to the respondent's institution for formal investigation;
• issuance of an expression of concern pending institutional investigation;
• post-publication correction of the author list, in accordance with the Corrections and Retractions Policy;
• reclassification as a Category E report where fraudulent authorship conduct is identified during the process.

Notification of outcomes. The complainant or appellant is informed of the principal outcome and of the principal reasons at a minimum procedural level sufficient to ensure understanding of the basis of the decision. The notification may be limited to a statement that the investigation has been concluded and that appropriate measures have been taken, provided that such limitation does not undermine the complainant's or appellant's ability to understand the procedural basis of the outcome.

21. ESCALATION TO COPE AND OTHER EXTERNAL BODIES

The Journal is a COPE member and is committed to acting in accordance with COPE Core Practices and Flowcharts in all cases of research and publication misconduct. The Editorial Direction may escalate a complaint, appeal, or investigation to COPE in the following circumstances:

• the case raises ethical questions of particular complexity for which no established precedent exists within the Journal's experience;
• the respondent or their institution fails to cooperate with the investigation within a reasonable time;
• the investigation reaches a contested determination and external review would strengthen the legitimacy of the outcome;
• the complainant or appellant requests COPE involvement and the Editorial Direction considers the request well-founded;
• the case involves potential violations of Italian or European law requiring referral to a competent authority.

COPE does not investigate individual cases on behalf of member journals. Still, it provides guidance on whether the journal's handling of a case is consistent with its Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines. The outcome of COPE advice is not binding on the Journal but is given significant weight in the determination.

Depending on the nature of the violation identified, the Journal may also notify: the respondent's employing institution or university; the funding body that supported the affected research; national research integrity bodies in the respondent's country; clinical trial registry authorities where the violation concerns a registered trial; and, in cases involving risks to patient safety, relevant health regulatory authorities.

22. VEXATIOUS AND BAD-FAITH COMPLAINTS

A submission is vexatious or made in bad faith where it is made:

• with the deliberate intention of harassing or professionally disadvantaging a specific person or group of persons;
• knowingly based on false or fabricated information;
• for the primary purpose of gaining a competitive advantage, delaying the publication of a competitor's work, or disrupting the editorial process of the Journal;
• as a continuation of a pattern of abusive or harassing communication with the Editorial Direction.

Determination. A finding of vexatious or bad-faith conduct may be made at any stage of the proceedings, including at the triage stage. A finding may not be made solely because the investigation did not confirm the concern; a finding of bad faith requires clear and documented evidence of intentional misconduct, not merely that the concern proved unfounded. A submission made in genuine but mistaken belief does not constitute bad faith.

Consequences. A finding of vexatious or bad-faith conduct may result in:

• closure of the submission without further examination and notification to the complainant of the finding;
• notification to the respondent that the complaint or appeal has been assessed as vexatious, with an apology where appropriate;
• imposition of a time-limited or permanent ban from the use of the procedures under this Policy;
• referral to the respondent's institution where the conduct is serious;
• in cases of egregious conduct, referral to competent legal authorities.

A person against whom a finding of vexatious conduct has been made retains the right to submit a well-founded complaint or report in the future, subject to heightened scrutiny at the triage stage.

23. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN COMPLAINT AND APPEAL HANDLING

No person who has a material conflict of interest in relation to a complaint, appeal, or investigation may participate in the triage, examination, or determination of that submission. A material conflict of interest exists, in particular, where the person:

• was directly involved in the editorial decision being challenged or in the events giving rise to the complaint;
• is a co-author, close professional collaborator, or personal acquaintance of the complainant, appellant, or respondent;
• has a financial, professional, or personal relationship with any party that may compromise their objectivity;
• has publicly expressed a prior substantive opinion on the matter under examination.

Declaration and recusal. Any person responsible for handling a submission who becomes aware of a potential conflict of interest is required to declare it immediately to the Editor-in-Chief or, where the Editor-in-Chief is the person with the conflict, to the Publisher. The declaration is documented in the case file, and the person is recused from all further involvement in the proceedings.

Designation of substitute. Where a conflict of interest results in the recusal of the Editor-in-Chief, the Publisher designates an independent investigator or committee. Where conflicts of interest affect the entire Editorial Direction, the Publisher may appoint an independent external expert or committee with expertise in publication ethics.

All conflict-of-interest declarations and recusals are documented in the case file and retained for at least 10 years after the closure of the proceedings.

24. ANNUAL REVIEW AND CROSS-REFERENCES WITHIN THE EDITORIAL POLICY FRAMEWORK

Annual review. This Policy is reviewed annually by the Editorial Direction and the Publisher. The annual review assesses: (a) the experience of the Journal in applying this Policy, including any recurring ambiguities or procedural gaps; (b) developments in the guidance of COPE, ICMJE, and other relevant bodies; (c) changes in applicable Italian and European law; (d) any recommendations arising from the public reporting described below. Material revisions are communicated to authors, reviewers, and Editorial Board members through the Journal's official channels. A versioned record of all editions of this Policy is maintained and publicly accessible on the Journal's website.

Public reporting. The Journal publishes annually, as part of its transparency report, the following aggregate and anonymised data: (a) number of Category A complaints received and the proportion resolved within the timelines of this Policy; (b) number of Category B appeals received, number found admissible, and breakdown of outcomes; (c) number of Category C appeals received and outcomes; (d) number of Category D complaints received; (e) number of Category E and F reports received, categorised by typology of concern; (f) number of cases escalated to COPE; (g) number of findings of vexatious or bad-faith conduct. No information that would allow identification of any party is included in the public report.

Cross-references within the Editorial Policy Framework. This Policy is part of the integrated editorial policy framework of European Gynecology and Obstetrics (EGO). The following cross-references apply:

• Editorial Policy Statement: establishes the foundational principles of editorial independence and the general commitment to procedural fairness that underpin this Policy, including the prohibition on misrepresentation of scientific content in public communications (Section 6), which forms the basis for Category A complaints under Section 5 of this Policy;
• Peer Review Policy (Section 16): establishes the general framework for appeals against editorial rejection decisions, of which Sections 8 through 11 of this Policy are the operational development;
• Corrections and Retractions Policy (Section 20): establishes the general framework for appeals against post-publication decisions, of which Section 12 of this Policy is the operational development;
• Editorial Board Charter: governs the appointment, conduct, and removal of members of the Editorial Board and of the Editor-in-Chief, including disciplinary procedures relevant to Category D complaints;
• Authorship Policy (Section 13): refers to this Policy for the operational procedure governing authorship disputes, developed in Section 13 of this Policy;
• Artificial Intelligence Policy (Section 12): establishes the rules on AI use by peer reviewers, violations of which may constitute grounds for a Category A or E submission under this Policy;
• Publication Ethics Policy: establishes the overall ethical framework and the duty of the Journal to respond to complaints and suspected misconduct;
• Conflict of Interest Policy: governs the declaration and management of conflicts of interest relevant to Category D complaints and to Section 23 of this Policy;
• Research Ethics Policy: governs ethical standards for human and animal research, violations of which may constitute reportable concerns under Category E.

25. REFERENCE STANDARDS

This Policy is consistent with and draws upon the following international standards and guidance documents:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices. Version current at the date of publication of this Policy.
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Flowchart: Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised directly. 2025 update.
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Flowchart: What to do if you receive a complaint about a reviewer. Current version.
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Flowchart: What to do if you suspect an author has been coerced. Current version.
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Flowchart: What to do if an authorship dispute arises. Current version.
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Current version.
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Guidance on sharing information among editors-in-chief about possible misconduct. 2025.
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Guidelines on cooperation between journals and research institutions. Current version.
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Updated April 2025.
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Version 4.
• Springer Nature. Editorial Policies: Appeals and Complaints. Current version.
• Elsevier. Editorial Decision Appeals Policy. Current version.
• Wiley. Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics. Current version.
• Taylor and Francis. Peer Review Appeals and Complaints. Current version.
• NISO Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC) Recommended Practice (NISO RP-45-2024).
• Office of Research Integrity (ORI, USA). Definition of Research Misconduct and Procedural Guidance. Current version.
• World Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki. Latest version in force.
• Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR).
• Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (Whistleblowers Directive).
• Italian Legislative Decree 24/2023 (transposition of EU Directive 2019/1937 on whistleblower protection).
• Italian Personal Data Protection Code (Legislative Decree 196/2003, as amended by Legislative Decree 101/2018).