Complaint Handling Procedure

Editorial Integrity & Accountability

Complaints may be submitted by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research participants, institutions, organizations, or other stakeholders concerning:

• Editorial decisions or peer-review procedures;
• Alleged bias, unfair treatment, unreasonable delay, or procedural irregularities during editorial handling;
• Plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other research misconduct;
• Concerns regarding the authenticity, accuracy, or ethical use of business, organizational, employee, customer, market, financial, or survey data;
• Errors or inaccuracies in published articles;
• Concerns regarding corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other post-publication actions; or
• Breaches of journal policy, editorial standards, or accepted scholarly publishing practices.

Complaints must be submitted in writing to [email protected] with the subject: Complaint – [Manuscript ID / Article DOI].

Please include:

• Name and contact details, or a clearly stated request for anonymity where appropriate;
• Manuscript ID, article DOI, title, or other relevant reference;
• A clear, factual description of the issue;
• Supporting documentation, correspondence, data, or other evidence where available;
• Your relationship to the manuscript, article, authors, organization, or journal; and
• The outcome or remedy you are requesting, where applicable.

Receipt of a complaint will normally be acknowledged within 5 business days. The journal will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the matter falls within the journal's responsibility and whether further investigation is required.

Where appropriate, the case will be handled by an independent editor, senior Editorial Board member, or panel not involved in the original decision. Individuals who have a relevant conflict of interest will not participate in reviewing the complaint.

Additional information may be requested from authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, employers, research organizations, data providers, or other relevant parties. The journal will follow applicable COPE guidance and established publication-ethics procedures when investigating allegations of misconduct or significant editorial concerns.

The journal aims to reach an outcome within 6 weeks, although complex cases involving multiple parties, institutional investigations, data verification, legal issues, or research misconduct may require additional time.

The complainant will be informed in writing of the outcome and, where relevant, any corrective or procedural action. Actions may include reconsideration of an editorial decision, reassignment of an editor or reviewer, revision of editorial procedures, publication of a correction, expression of concern, retraction, clarification, or other appropriate notice. Confidentiality will be maintained unless disclosure is required by law, institutional investigation, or publication-ethics procedures.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural error, inappropriate application of journal policy, or substantial misinterpretation of the manuscript affected the decision.

An appeal must provide specific reasons and supporting evidence. Mere disagreement with reviewer comments or the editorial decision, without substantive evidence of an error or procedural problem, is normally insufficient for reconsideration.

If the complainant or appellant is dissatisfied with the initial outcome, a request for reconsideration may be submitted to a senior Editorial Board member or the publisher. Where appropriate, external ethical guidance may also be sought from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reconsideration does not guarantee that the original editorial decision will be changed.