Complaints and Academic Appeals Policy

The Journal provides formal and open channels for all stakeholders, including authors and reviewers, to submit complaints and appeals. These requests are classified into three specific regulatory categories:

  • Allegations of Ethical and Professional Misconduct: This includes accusing reviewers of breaching data confidentiality, plagiarizing or misappropriating research ideas, or editors concealing any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Appeals Against Editorial and Scientific Decisions: Objections raised by authors against rejection decisions, claiming the existence of objective scientific errors or unjustified biases committed by reviewers that led to a flawed evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Administrative and Procedural Complaints: Grievances related to delays in processing files and editorial responses, or any perceived unprofessional conduct by the editorial staff.

Organizational Structure for Resolution and Response Timelines

Complaints are managed according to a strict governance mechanism rooted in absolute transparency and complete impartiality. The Editorial Coordinator is committed to sending an official acknowledgment of receipt to the complainant within 10 working days from the date of submission.

Serious cases that are supported by material evidence are referred to the Independent Editorial Integrity Committee (composed of the Editor-in-Chief and two independent members from the Journal's Advisory Board). The internal investigation and inquiry process typically takes between 4 to 6 weeks, after which the complainant receives a detailed, reasoned report outlining the final decision.

Appeals Protocol Against Rejection Decisions

Authors retain the right to submit only a Single Appeal against an editorial rejection decision, within 30 days from the date of issuance. For the request to be valid and substantively considered, the author must provide a detailed scientific rebuttal along with a Point-by-Point Response table. This document must refute the reviewers' claims using concrete evidence and data, or conclusively demonstrate that a reviewer committed a grave technical error or exhibited personal bias.

If the appeal is editorially accepted, the manuscript is referred to a third, completely independent and neutral reviewer. Their scientific evaluation following the review process shall be binding and final for both the Journal and the author, and no further appeals will be entertained.

Protecting Editorial Fairness from External Pressures

These regulations guarantee the absolute independence of the editorial decisions made by the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team. Any interference or attempt to influence by executive structures or external entities is strictly prohibited.

Furthermore, the Journal strictly adheres to the guiding protocols of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when handling complaints or grievances raised publicly via social media networks. Official interaction will take place through the same platforms within 24 hours to announce the initiation of an internal investigation, while simultaneously redirecting the discussion to the Journal's official, closed communication channels. This measure is vital to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation and protect the privacy of all involved parties.