Complaints and Appeals Policies

Complaints Handling, Appeals, Misconduct Investigation & Editorial Integrity Policy

Transparent Complaint Resolution • Editorial Accountability • Ethical Governance • Publication Integrity

This policy establishes a structured framework for handling complaints, appeals, ethical concerns, professional misconduct, editorial disputes, and publication integrity matters in a fair, transparent, confidential, and accountable manner

The journal is committed to protecting scientific integrity, editorial independence, ethical publishing standards, and responsible scholarly communication. All complaints and investigations are managed impartially and according to internationally recognised ethical publishing principles and COPE-aligned practices.

1. Purpose & Scope

This policy governs all complaint handling procedures, appeals, professional misconduct investigations, editorial disputes, ethical concerns, corrections, withdrawals, and post-publication integrity matters associated with the journal. The policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, journal staff, and the publisher. The objective of this policy is to ensure that all concerns are handled according to principles of fairness, confidentiality, evidence-based assessment, procedural transparency, and editorial accountability. Every complaint is reviewed without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, academic status, political perspective, or financial considerations.

  • Applies before, during, and after publication.
  • Covers editorial, ethical, procedural, scientific, and conduct-related complaints.
  • Protects the integrity of the scholarly record and publication process.
  • Ensures transparent documentation and accountability at every stage.

2. Investigation & Decision Framework

All complaints and allegations are evaluated through a structured multi-level investigation process designed to ensure fairness, consistency, procedural integrity, and responsible editorial governance.

  • Initial Evaluation: Preliminary assessment of the complaint, allegation, or ethical concern.
  • Evidence Compilation: Collection and review of editorial records, reviewer reports, manuscript versions, correspondence, similarity reports, raw data, ethics approvals, images, and supporting documentation.
  • Editorial Consultation: Consultation with editors, reviewers, subject experts, ethics advisors, or institutional representatives where necessary.
  • COPE-Compliant Assessment: Evaluation according to publication ethics standards, journal policies, and documented evidence.
  • Decision & Corrective Actions: Editorial clarification, re-review, correction, expression of concern, retraction, sanctions, or institutional notification.
  • Documentation & Archiving: All investigation records and decisions are formally documented and securely archived for accountability and future reference.
  • Policy Circulars & Updates: Formal notices may be issued where policy amendments or procedural improvements become necessary.

3. Complaints & Appeals

The journal ensures that all editorial, ethical, scientific, procedural, or conduct-related complaints are handled professionally, confidentially, impartially, and without prejudice.

3.1 Types of Complaints

  • Editorial decision disputes
  • Reviewer misconduct or inappropriate peer review
  • Publication delays
  • Research misconduct allegations
  • Conflict of interest concerns
  • Authorship disputes
  • Data integrity concerns
  • Citation manipulation allegations
  • Retraction or correction disputes
  • Editorial misconduct or abuse of authority

3.2 Complaint Submission & Timeline

Complaints must be submitted through the official journal communication system with complete supporting information to facilitate fair review and proper documentation.

  • Submission: Complaints should include manuscript title, manuscript ID, detailed explanation of the concern, and supporting evidence.
  • Acknowledgement: Formal acknowledgement is normally issued within 5 working days.
  • Preliminary Review: Initial assessment is generally completed within 10 working days.
  • Formal Investigation: Serious complaints may require 2–6 weeks depending on complexity and availability of evidence.
  • Outcome Notification: Final decisions are communicated within 7 working days after investigation closure.
  • Appeals: A one-time formal appeal may be submitted within 15 days after the editorial decision with substantial supporting evidence.

4. Complaints Handling Bodies & Responsibilities

4.1 Editorial Office

The Editorial Office acts as the primary administrative body responsible for receiving complaints, registering cases, maintaining confidential records, coordinating communication, and ensuring procedural compliance throughout the investigation process.

4.2 Handling Editor

The Handling Editor may perform the initial editorial assessment of complaints associated with assigned manuscripts. Responsibilities include evaluating evidence, reviewing editorial history, communicating with parties involved, and recommending whether a formal investigation is required.

4.3 Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief supervises serious ethical investigations, editorial disputes, misconduct allegations, appeals, corrections, and retractions. The Editor-in-Chief ensures procedural fairness, ethical compliance, and independent decision-making.

4.4 Ethics or Investigation Committee

For complex cases, the journal may establish an ethics or investigation committee composed of senior editors, independent reviewers, ethics advisors, or subject specialists. The committee reviews evidence, consults external experts if necessary, and provides recommendations regarding corrective actions or sanctions.

4.5 External Experts & Institutions

The journal may seek assistance from independent experts, institutional ethics committees, funding bodies, or research organizations where allegations involve technical complexity, data fraud, legal implications, or institutional misconduct.

5. Professional Misconduct

Professional misconduct includes actions that compromise research integrity, publication ethics, AI issues, scientific reliability, or editorial transparency.

5.1 Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes unauthorised copying or close imitation of text, figures, tables, images, concepts, ideas, or data without appropriate acknowledgement or citation. The journal evaluates plagiarism through similarity reports, contextual analysis, and editorial assessment.

5.2 Fabrication, Falsification & Data Manipulation

Fabrication involves creating false data or results that never existed, while falsification includes manipulation, alteration, or selective omission of research findings. The journal may request raw data, laboratory records, statistical outputs, or institutional verification during investigation.

5.3 Image Manipulation

Image alteration beyond technical improvement or clarity is prohibited. Image production using AI is also prohibited. Manipulation intended to misrepresent scientific findings, conceal information, or duplicate visual data constitutes misconduct.

5.4 Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Submitting substantially similar manuscripts to multiple journals or republishing previously published work without proper disclosure is considered an unethical publication practice.

5.5 Fake or Manipulated Peer Review

Manipulation of peer review through fabricated reviewer identities, fraudulent reviewer accounts, or misleading reviewer recommendations is strictly prohibited and may result in immediate rejection or retraction and editors' disqualification.

5.6 Authorship Manipulation

Authorship misconduct includes gift authorship, ghost authorship, unauthorised inclusion or removal of authors, or false representation of contributions.

5.7 Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose financial, institutional, academic, or personal conflicts that may influence editorial or scientific objectivity may constitute ethical misconduct.

5.8 Ethics Approval Violations

Research involving humans or animals without proper ethical approval, informed consent, or institutional authorisation constitutes a serious ethical violation.

6. Conflict of Interest (COI)

  • Authors: Must disclose all financial and non-financial conflicts, funding sources, sponsor involvement, and relevant affiliations.
  • Reviewers: Must decline review where personal, academic, institutional, or professional conflicts exist.
  • Editors: Must recuse themselves from manuscripts where conflicts could compromise objectivity.
  • Enforcement: Suspected non-disclosure may trigger investigation, correction, or retraction procedures.

Possible outcomes include: Editorial clarification, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or institutional notification depending on the seriousness of the violation.

7. Retraction, Corrections & Withdrawal

  • Clarifications & Corrections: Issued where additional explanation, technical correction, or factual clarification is necessary.
  • Retractions: Retraction applies to published articles when their findings are found to be unreliable due to scientific error, research misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, or compromised peer review. Retraction may be initiated by authors, editors, or the publisher following a formal investigation. A retraction notice will be clearly linked to the original article and will remain permanently accessible to preserve the scholarly record. The original article is not removed but is marked as retracted in accordance with best publishing practices. Retraction decisions are based on COPE guidelines and are made to ensure the integrity, transparency, and reliability of the academic record.
  • Author-Initiated Retraction: May occur because of honest error identified by authors after publication.
  • Misconduct-Based Retraction: May result from confirmed scientific fraud, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or unethical conduct after investigation.
  • Retraction Notices: Clearly identify the reason for retraction, link to the original article, and remain permanently accessible and indexed.
  • Withdrawal: Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript before it has completed the peer review process or before formal acceptance. Withdrawal requests must be submitted in writing by the corresponding author, clearly stating the reason for withdrawal. The editorial office may approve withdrawal if the manuscript is still under initial screening or peer review and no final decision has been made. Withdrawal is not permitted after acceptance, except in exceptional circumstances involving ethical concerns, duplicate submission, or serious procedural issues. Unauthorised withdrawal after acceptance may be treated as a breach of publication ethics and may lead to sanctions in accordance with COPE guidelines.

8. Data Integrity, Transparency & Image Authenticity

  • Authors must retain original raw data for at least 2 years after publication.
  • Raw data or supporting documentation must be provided within 10 days upon editorial request.
  • Manipulation or unauthorized use of images, figures, or graphical materials is prohibited.
  • AI-generated content may be screened for accuracy, originality, and ethical compliance.
  • Artificial intelligence tools cannot be credited as authors.
  • The journal may conduct plagiarism screening, image analysis, citation analysis, and conflict-of-interest verification.

9. Citation Manipulation & Ethical Citation Practices

The journal maintains strict ethical standards regarding citations. Citation manipulation, coercive citation practices, citation cartels, irrelevant references, or excessive self-citation intended to artificially influence metrics or impact indicators are prohibited.

  • Purpose & Scope: Citation manipulation includes unnecessary references added to inflate citation counts, coercive citation requests by editors or reviewers, or excessive self-citation for personal, institutional, or journal-related gain.
  • Investigation Process:
    • Editorial screening for unusual citation patterns
    • Reference relevance verification
    • Cross-checking of citation concentration trends
    • Requests for author justification where questionable citations are identified
  • Outcomes & Sanctions:
    • Mandatory citation revision
    • Editorial warning or manuscript rejection
    • Institutional notification for serious violations
    • Temporary or permanent submission restrictions
  • Prevention: Authors should cite only scientifically relevant sources. Editors and reviewers must not request irrelevant references intended solely to increase citation metrics. 

10. Post-Publication Discussion & Scholarly Debate

The journal supports responsible post-publication scientific discussion and scholarly debate. Academic criticism and scientific discussion should remain professional, evidence-based, respectful, and focused on improving scientific understanding.

  • The discussion should interpret findings accurately and responsibly.
  • Conclusions should remain evidence-based and should not exaggerate findings.
  • Editorial and reviewer decisions related to post-publication concerns are permanently archived.
  • Substantial post-publication concerns may trigger editorial review or investigation.