Complaint Handling Procedure

Editorial Integrity & Accountability

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

• Editorial decisions or peer-review procedures;
• Plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, authorship disputes, citation manipulation, or other research misconduct;
• Errors or inaccuracies in published articles;
• Concerns regarding datasets, source code, algorithms, software, computational models, artificial-intelligence methods, or reported technical results;
• Ethical, privacy, cybersecurity, intellectual-property, or licensing concerns;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• Inappropriate editorial or reviewer conduct; or
• Breaches of journal policy 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 description of the issue and supporting evidence;
• Relevant files, screenshots, correspondence, code, datasets, or documentation where applicable; and
• Your relationship to the manuscript, article, authors, 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, relevance, seriousness, and evidence supporting the complaint 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. Additional information may be requested from authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, data providers, software developers, or other relevant parties. Where technical concerns involve source code, algorithms, data processing, cybersecurity, or computational results, qualified subject experts may be consulted. COPE guidance will be followed where applicable.

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

The complainant will be informed in writing of the outcome and, where relevant, any corrective action, such as a correction, expression of concern, retraction, withdrawal, reassessment of an editorial decision, reviewer replacement, or procedural improvement. Confidentiality will be maintained unless disclosure is required by law, research-integrity procedures, institutional investigation, or another legitimate process.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual, methodological, technical, or procedural misunderstanding materially affected the decision.

An appeal should:

• Clearly identify the manuscript and editorial decision being appealed;
• Explain the specific grounds for reconsideration;
• Address the relevant reviewer or editor comments in a factual and evidence-based manner;
• Provide technical, methodological, computational, or documentary evidence where appropriate; and
• Avoid simply repeating arguments already considered during peer review.

Appeals are evaluated on their merits and do not guarantee reversal of the original editorial decision. Where appropriate, the appeal may be assessed by a senior or independent editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the outcome, a request for reconsideration may be submitted to a senior Editorial Board member or the publisher. The request should identify the specific procedural, factual, ethical, or evidentiary basis for further review. Where appropriate, guidance may also be sought from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or relevant institutions.