MISCONDUCT, COMPLAINTS & APPEALS

UTILITY takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. Allegations, complaints, and appeals are handled confidentially, fairly, objectively, and promptly, in accordance with recognized standards of publication ethics and the guidance and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal is committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record and ensuring that all parties involved in the publication process are treated fairly.

1. Scope of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • fabrication or falsification of data, images, results, or other research materials;

  • plagiarism, including self-plagiarism and inappropriate text recycling without proper acknowledgement;

  • duplicate, redundant, or simultaneous submission or publication;

  • authorship misconduct, including ghost, gift, or guest authorship, as well as unauthorized or unagreed changes to the author list;

  • failure to disclose relevant conflicts of interest;

  • research involving human participants without appropriate ethical approval and/or informed consent, where required;

  • citation manipulation, including excessive or inappropriate citation practices intended to influence citation metrics;

  • manipulation of the peer-review process, including the use of false reviewer identities or fabricated reviewer recommendations;

  • falsification or manipulation of peer-review information;

  • inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative artificial intelligence in violation of the journal's applicable Generative AI Policy; and

  • other practices that may compromise the integrity, reliability, or transparency of scholarly research and publication.

2. Reporting an Allegation

Anyone who has reasonable concerns regarding suspected research or publication misconduct involving a manuscript under review or an article published in UTILITY may report the concern to the journal's editorial office through the official contact information provided on the journal website.

Reports should, where possible, include:

  • the title of the manuscript or published article;

  • the DOI or other identifying information, where available;

  • a clear description of the alleged misconduct; and

  • supporting evidence or documentation.

The identity of the person reporting the concern will be treated confidentially to the extent possible. Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficient and verifiable evidence to warrant further assessment.

The journal does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith.

3. Investigation Procedure

UTILITY follows a fair and evidence-based procedure when handling allegations of misconduct.

  1. Acknowledgement
    The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor acknowledges receipt of a report, normally within 7 working days.

  2. Preliminary Assessment
    The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor conducts an initial assessment of the allegation and available evidence. Where appropriate, the assessment will involve at least one additional member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest in the case.

  3. Author Response
    If the allegation has sufficient basis for further consideration, the corresponding author will be informed of the concern and given an opportunity to provide an explanation or supporting evidence, normally within 30 days.

  4. Further Investigation and Escalation
    If the response is inadequate, the concern remains unresolved, or the allegation involves serious research misconduct, UTILITY may contact the relevant author(s), institution(s), research ethics body, or other appropriate authority and request further investigation. The journal may also seek independent expert advice or consult relevant COPE guidance where necessary.

  5. Decision
    After considering the available evidence and responses, the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor will determine the appropriate outcome. The decision will be communicated to the relevant parties as appropriate.

Throughout the process, UTILITY will make reasonable efforts to maintain confidentiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

4. Possible Outcomes

Depending on the nature and severity of the case, possible outcomes include:

For manuscripts under review:

  • rejection of the manuscript;

  • termination of the peer-review process;

  • requirement for clarification or correction of the submission;

  • restriction on future submissions to the journal for a defined period in serious cases; or

  • referral of the matter to the relevant institution or authority.

For published articles:

  • publication of a correction, erratum, or corrigendum;

  • publication of an Expression of Concern;

  • retraction of the article;

  • notification of the relevant author's institution or research organization; and/or

  • notification of relevant indexing or abstracting services where appropriate.

Any correction, expression of concern, or retraction will be clearly linked to the original publication in order to preserve the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record.

If an allegation is determined to be unfounded or unsupported by sufficient evidence, the case will be closed and the relevant parties will be informed as appropriate.

5. Complaints

Complaints concerning the journal's editorial processes, peer-review procedures, publication practices, staff, or policies may be submitted to the editorial office through the official contact information provided on the UTILITY journal website.

Complaints should include:

  • the name and contact details of the complainant;

  • a clear description of the complaint;

  • the manuscript or article involved, where applicable; and

  • relevant supporting evidence or documentation.

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor will acknowledge receipt of a complaint, normally within 7 working days, and will make reasonable efforts to provide a substantive response within 30 days.

Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief will not be handled solely by the person against whom the complaint is made. Such complaints will be referred to an independent member of the Editorial Board, the journal's publisher, or another appropriate independent authority for consideration.

6. Appeals of Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a factual error, significant misunderstanding, or failure to consider relevant information may submit an appeal.

An appeal must:

  • be submitted within 30 days of the original editorial decision;

  • identify the manuscript concerned;

  • clearly explain the grounds for the appeal;

  • provide relevant evidence supporting the appeal; and

  • respond specifically and objectively to the issues raised in the editorial or reviewer comments.

Authors may submit one appeal per manuscript. The appeal will be assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision. Where necessary, the journal may seek an additional independent review or expert opinion.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. The decision following the appeal will be based on the available evidence and applicable editorial policies and will be considered final.

A manuscript under appeal should not be simultaneously submitted to another journal until the appeal process has been concluded.

UTILITY is committed to handling misconduct allegations, complaints, and appeals in a transparent, impartial, and ethical manner while protecting the confidentiality of all parties and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.