Complaints and appeals
A recorded route for challenging process, conduct or editorial decisions.
Scope
A complaint concerns service, conduct, policy application or an alleged procedural failure. An appeal asks the journal to reconsider an editorial decision because a material factual, methodological or procedural error is identified. Disagreement with reviewer opinion alone is not sufficient.
How to submit
Contact the journal office, identify the manuscript or page, state the outcome sought, and provide concise supporting evidence. Do not contact reviewers directly. Complaints about an editor are routed to a different senior editor.
Initial review
The office acknowledges the matter, preserves relevant records and checks whether urgent action is needed to protect confidentiality, safety or the published record. The person whose conduct is challenged is not the sole decision-maker on the complaint.
Appeal review
A senior editor not materially involved in the original decision reviews the stated grounds and relevant record. The journal may seek an additional methodological or ethical opinion. An appeal can uphold, modify or reopen the decision but does not guarantee external re-review.
Outcome and further escalation
The journal provides a reasoned outcome subject to confidentiality and data-protection limits. If internal review is exhausted, the complainant may request information about an appropriate publisher, institution, regulator or recognised publication-ethics route where one has jurisdiction.
No retaliation
Good-faith complaints do not disadvantage an author, reviewer or staff member. Abusive, repetitive or threatening communications may be restricted while the substantive issue is still assessed fairly.