Complaint Handling Procedure

Editorial Integrity & Accountability

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

• Editorial decisions or peer-review procedures;
• Concerns regarding fairness, bias, confidentiality, reviewer conduct, or editorial handling;
• Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, or other scientific and publication misconduct;
• Serious concerns involving experimental procedures, scientific measurements, laboratory records, numerical analysis, computational models, or simulation results;
• Problems involving ethical approval, research permits, laboratory authorization, biosafety requirements, or applicable institutional procedures;
• Errors or inaccuracies in published research, including equations, measurements, units, datasets, tables, figures, calculations, analysis, or conclusions; or
• Breaches of journal policy or accepted scientific 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 and factual description of the issue;
• Supporting evidence, correspondence, calculations, data, figures, laboratory records, or other relevant documentation where available; and
• Your relationship to the manuscript, article, research project, institution, 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 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 or alleged issue. Editors or reviewers with a relevant conflict of interest will not participate in the investigation.

Additional information may be requested from authors, reviewers, editors, research institutions, laboratories, ethics committees, funding organizations, or other relevant parties. COPE guidance and applicable principles of scientific research integrity will be followed where appropriate.

The journal aims to reach an outcome within 6 weeks, although complex cases involving institutional investigation, experimental verification, data integrity, image analysis, authorship disputes, or suspected scientific 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 editorial clarification, additional peer review, reconsideration of an editorial decision, request for corrected data or analysis, amendment of journal procedures, a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or referral to an appropriate institution or authority. Confidentiality will be maintained unless disclosure is required by law, ethical obligation, or formal investigation.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a material scientific or procedural error occurred in the review or decision-making process, relevant evidence was overlooked, or journal procedures were not properly followed. An appeal should provide a clear scientific and procedural justification rather than simply expressing disagreement with the editorial outcome.

If the complainant or appellant is dissatisfied with the outcome, a request for reconsideration may be submitted to a senior Editorial Board member or the publisher. The appeal should normally be reviewed by an individual who was not directly responsible for the original decision. Where appropriate, guidance may also be sought from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).