Complaints and Appeals

Right to complain and impartial reconsideration of decisions

Appeals challenge a manuscript decision; complaints concern conduct, delay, treatment, conflicts, confidentiality, or policy application. They must present facts, arguments, and documents rather than abuse or pressure.

The reviewing person must be independent of the disputed decision. If the matter concerns the editor-in-chief, the publishing entity appoints a conflict-free handler. A good-faith complaint does not prejudice future submissions.

Submission

Complaints about editorial conduct and appeals against decisions must be submitted in writing, identify the manuscript, state specific grounds, and provide documentation. Disagreement without academic argument is not a sufficient appeal.

Independent review

The request is examined by the editor-in-chief or a person not involved in the disputed decision and free from conflicts. Reports, correspondence, and applicable policies may be reviewed.

Outcome

The journal will uphold, amend, or overturn the decision and provide reasons. An appeal does not guarantee a new review. Ethical allegations follow COPE procedures with confidentiality and protection against retaliation.

Complaint versus appeal

An appeal challenges a specific editorial decision and must show a relevant factual, procedural, or interpretive error. It is not a means to replace scientific judgment with author preference or demand acceptance. A complaint concerns conduct, delay, treatment, confidentiality, conflicts, or failure to follow policy.

The communication should be submitted within 30 calendar days of the decision or discovery of the event unless an ethical matter justifies a longer period. Receipt is acknowledged, and the journal identifies the person handling the case and any additional information required.

Procedure

Initial review checks jurisdiction, documentation, and possible conflicts. If the complaint concerns the editor-in-chief, the publishing entity appoints an independent person. Scientific appeals examine the manuscript, reports, and decision letter; an additional assessment may be requested, but peer review is not automatically repeated.

The journal aims to provide a reasoned response within 30 calendar days after the file is complete. Complex cases may require more time; the status and a revised estimate are then communicated. The appeal outcome is final within the journal without limiting applicable institutional or legal avenues.

Protection and integrity

People who raise a concern in good faith will not face editorial retaliation. Communications are limited to those who need access, and records are retained under the confidentiality policy. Manifestly abusive, discriminatory, or repetitive complaints without new evidence may be closed by an explained decision.

If review identifies an editorial error, the journal corrects it and documents preventive measures. Possible research misconduct is handled under the ethics policy and, where appropriate, referred to the competent institution.

Implementation procedure

  • Receive the communication through the official channel and assign a number and date.
  • Acknowledge receipt and identify missing information.
  • Determine whether it is a scientific appeal, process complaint, or ethics allegation.
  • Collect the manuscript, reports, decisions, communications, and applicable policies.
  • Request independent assessment or additional advice when needed.
  • Provide a reasoned response within 30 days after the file is complete or give a revised date.
  • Record the outcome and implement any process correction.

Evidence of compliance

  • The original request and supporting documents.
  • An independence declaration from the handler.
  • A review report and reasoned outcome.
  • Records of deadlines, communications, and corrective action.

Separation of appeals from ethics complaints

An appeal challenges an editorial decision with verifiable arguments concerning procedural or assessment errors; it does not guarantee fresh external review. Integrity complaints shall follow a separate track and, if they implicate the decision-maker, review shall be assigned to an independent editor. Every outcome shall record its reasons and case closure.

Policy monitoring and review

An appeal may uphold, amend, or overturn a decision but does not guarantee acceptance or new review. Repeated requests without new evidence may be closed. Potential ethics matters are separated from the appeal and handled under the relevant policy.