Complaints & Appeals Policy

Complaints & Appeals Policy

Health Nexus is committed to ensuring a fair, transparent, and accountable editorial process. The journal provides mechanisms for authors, reviewers, and readers to raise complaints or appeal editorial decisions.

All cases are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

1. Scope of Complaints and Appeals

This policy applies to concerns related to:

• Editorial decisions (e.g., rejection of a manuscript)
• Peer review process (e.g., bias, delays, reviewer conduct)
• Publication ethics (e.g., misconduct, conflicts of interest)
• Post-publication issues (e.g., corrections, retractions)

2. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe:

• The decision was based on misunderstanding or factual error
• Reviewer comments were inappropriate or biased
• Significant scientific aspects were overlooked

Appeal Requirements

Authors must submit:

• A detailed explanation of the grounds for appeal
• A point-by-point response to reviewer comments (if applicable)
• Supporting evidence or clarification

Appeals must be submitted within a reasonable timeframe after the decision.

3. Complaints Handling Process

The journal follows a structured procedure:

Submission of Complaint

• Complaints should be submitted via email to the Editorial Office

Acknowledgment

• Receipt of the complaint will be acknowledged within 5–7 working days

Investigation

• The Editorial Office reviews the complaint
• Additional information may be requested from involved parties

Decision

• A final decision will be communicated with justification

4. Appeal Review Process

• Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editorial board member not involved in the original decision
• Additional peer review may be conducted if necessary
• The decision on appeal is final

5. Ethical Complaints

Allegations of ethical misconduct will be handled in accordance with:

• COPE flowcharts and best practices

This may involve:

• Contacting authors or institutions
• Requesting supporting documentation
• Initiating formal investigations

6. Reviewer and Editorial Conduct

Complaints regarding reviewers or editors (e.g., bias, unprofessional behavior) will be:

• Investigated confidentially
• Addressed appropriately, including reviewer removal if necessary

7. Confidentiality

• All complaints and appeals are handled confidentially
• Information is shared only with relevant parties
• The journal ensures fairness and impartiality

8. Outcomes

Possible outcomes include:

• Upholding or overturning editorial decisions
• Re-review of the manuscript
• Issuance of corrections or retractions
• Implementation of editorial improvements

9. Editorial Independence

10. Contact Information

11. Compliance with Standards