ENOSH separates editorial quality decisions from publication-ethics investigations and maintains documented routes for appeals, corrections and post-publication action.
Scope, relevance, completeness, basic integrity, rights and ethics readiness.
Normally at least two qualified reviewers for research-focused books, double-anonymized where practicable.
Reasoned decisions record reviewer comments, revisions and conflicts.
Authors, reviewers and editors disclose conflicts.
Unpublished material is confidential and not used for unauthorized AI training.
Correction, expression of concern or retraction when warranted.
Authors may request reconsideration when they identify a substantive procedural or factual issue.
Ethics concerns, suspected misconduct and editorial complaints should reach the editorial office in writing at editorial@enoshpublishing.com.
Complaints are logged, acknowledged within five working days and handled independently of the original editorial decision. Responses for allegations involving a member of the editorial team are routed outside that team. Outcomes are communicated to the complainant in writing.
Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of the decision, identify the specific procedural or factual issue and attach supporting material. They are reviewed by an editor not involved in the original decision. Post-publication errors are resolved through correction, expression of concern or retraction, in line with COPE guidance.
ENOSH aligns its editorial policy with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) core practices and COPE flowcharts for misconduct, appeals and corrections. ENOSH's position on generative AI in authorship, disclosure and reviewing is set out in the AI-Use Policy.
