The journal provides transparent mechanisms for authors to appeal editorial decisions or file complaints regarding journal policies. This process is designed in adherence to COPE guidelines and with the aim of ensuring fairness and transparency.
Appeals Against Editorial Decisions
Procedure: Authors have the right to submit a formal appeal request against an editorial decision (e.g., manuscript rejection). This request must meet all journal requirements and be submitted according to the defined procedure.
Review of Appeal: The Editor‑in‑Chief examines the author's arguments while considering the initial reviewer reports. The outcome of this process may be: upholding the original decision, seeking independent expert opinion (a new reviewer), or accepting the author's appeal.
Limitations: Typically, only one appeal request is considered per manuscript, and the decision made at this stage will be final. Authors must not resubmit their manuscript until the appeal request has been resolved.
Complaints About Processes or Research Ethics
Complaints relating to non‑editorial matters (e.g., prolonged delays in manuscript processing, or concerns about the ethical conduct of staff, authors, or reviewers) fall into this category.
Process Complaints: For issues such as delays in manuscript processing, the Editor‑in‑Chief, in collaboration with the relevant associate editor or executive staff, will investigate the matter and provide an appropriate response to the complainant. Based on the findings, necessary actions will be taken to improve processes and procedures.
Ethical Complaints: For complaints regarding potential research or publication misconduct (e.g., author or reviewer behaviour), the Editor‑in‑Chief or a specialist associate editor will investigate the matter in accordance with COPE guidelines. The complainant will be informed of the course of action. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they may refer their complaint directly to COPE. The journal will make every effort to ensure that all investigations are conducted objectively, with reasoned arguments, and while preserving the right of reply for all parties involved.
