
Complaints & Appeals
We distinguish between Appeals (related to editorial decisions) and Complaints (related to professional conduct or administrative processes).
Authors may appeal a rejection if they can demonstrate a significant factual error or a procedural irregularity in the peer review. Note that:
- Appeals must provide evidence-based arguments addressing the specific points raised in the review reports.
- The case will be re-evaluated by a senior editor not involved in the initial decision, or an independent member of the Editorial Board.
- The final decision following an appeal is definitive to maintain the efficiency of the scholarly record.
Complaints may involve suspected research misconduct, bias, or unethical behavior by any participant in the process, including:
- Plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification.
- Conflicts of interest or breaches of confidentiality by reviewers.
- Unprofessional conduct or undue delays by editorial staff.
- Failure to follow the journal's stated editorial and ethical policies.
The journal ensures a swift and fair investigative process:
- Acknowledgment: Within 5 working days of receipt.
- Investigation: Conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent committee if the complaint involves the Editor.
- Resolution: We aim to provide a final response within 4–8 weeks.
- External Escalation: If the complainant is unsatisfied with the internal resolution, the case may be referred to COPE or relevant institutional ombudspersons.
All investigations are conducted with the highest degree of confidentiality. The journal protects the identity of whistleblowers and ensures that no individual faces retaliation for raising a legitimate concern in good faith. Anonymous allegations are investigated provided they offer credible evidence of a serious ethical breach.
By maintaining a robust and independent appeals system, we align our interdisciplinary research practices with global standards, ensuring that every author is treated with fairness and respect.