Complaint Handling Procedure

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

• Editorial decisions or peer-review procedures;
• Perceived procedural unfairness, unreasonable delays, or inappropriate editorial conduct;
• Plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, authorship disputes, manipulated citations, or other research misconduct;
• Ethical concerns involving interviews, surveys, media content, digital platforms, participant consent, privacy, or confidential communication data;
• Errors, inaccuracies, misleading claims, or inappropriate content in published articles;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest or concerns regarding editorial independence; or
• Breaches of journal policy, publication-ethics 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 request for anonymity where appropriate;
• Manuscript ID, DOI, article title, or other relevant reference;
• A clear and specific description of the issue;
• Relevant supporting evidence, correspondence, documents, or records where available; and
• Your relationship to the manuscript, article, authors, research, or journal.

Receipt of a complaint will normally be acknowledged within 5 business days. The journal will conduct an initial assessment to determine the nature, seriousness, and scope of the concern and whether further investigation is required.

Where appropriate, the case will be handled by an independent editor or panel not involved in the original decision. Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest will not normally participate in the investigation or appeal decision.

Additional information may be requested from authors, reviewers, editors, research institutions, ethics committees, publishers, data providers, or other relevant parties. For communication research, this may include supporting information related to participant consent, interview records, media materials, communication datasets, social-media data, coding records, or research documentation.

The journal will follow relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance where applicable and will seek to ensure that all parties are treated fairly and given an appropriate opportunity to respond to material concerns.

The journal aims to reach an outcome within 6 weeks, although complex cases involving institutions, multiple parties, legal questions, research-integrity investigations, or external evidence may require additional time.

The outcome will be based on the available evidence, applicable journal policies, publication-ethics principles, and procedural fairness. Possible actions may include:

• Upholding or reconsidering an editorial decision;
• Obtaining an additional independent editorial or peer review;
• Providing clarification or acknowledging a procedural issue;
• Implementing improvements to editorial or peer-review procedures;
• Correcting published information;
• Publishing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction where appropriate; or
• Referring serious research-integrity matters to the relevant institution or authority where necessary.

The complainant will be informed in writing of the outcome and, where appropriate, the action taken. Confidentiality will be maintained to the extent reasonably possible unless disclosure is required by law, institutional investigation, ethical obligations, or protection of the scholarly record.

If the complainant or affected author is dissatisfied with the outcome, a request for reconsideration may be submitted when there are reasonable grounds to believe that:

• Relevant evidence was overlooked or misunderstood;
• A material procedural error occurred;
• A conflict of interest may have affected the original handling of the case; or
• Significant new information has become available.

Appeals may be referred to a senior Editorial Board member, an editor who was not involved in the original decision, or the publisher. Where appropriate, guidance may also be sought from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). An appeal is not automatically a new peer-review round and should identify specific grounds for reconsideration rather than simply disagreement with the outcome.