Complaints & Appeals Policy

What this policy covers

The policy covers two different things, which are handled differently.

Allegations of misconduct by an author are not complaints under this policy; they are handled under the publication ethics policy. Requests to correct a published article are handled under the retraction and correction policy.

Grounds for an appeal

An appeal must identify something that went wrong in reaching the decision, not simply disagree with it. The journal considers appeals on these grounds:

• Factual error. A reviewer or editor based their assessment on a statement of fact that is demonstrably wrong.
• Misunderstanding of the method. A criticism rests on a misreading of what was done — for example treating a deliberate design choice as an oversight.
• Missed expertise. No reviewer had the specific expertise the manuscript required, and the assessment suffered for it.
• Undisclosed competing interest. A reviewer or editor held an interest that should have led them to decline, under the conflict of interest policy.
• Procedural failure. The decision did not follow the peer review policy — fewer reviews than required, for instance.
• Bias. The decision appears to have turned on the authors’ identity, institution, nationality or command of English rather than on the work.

What is not a ground

Peer review is a matter of expert judgement, and disagreeing with that judgement is not itself grounds for appeal. The following are not considered:

• Believing the reviewers undervalued the work, or that a different reviewer would have been more favourable;
• Disagreeing that the manuscript falls outside the journal’s aims and scope;
• Urgency — a deadline, a probation date, a funding round;
• Objection to the tone of a report, which is a complaint rather than an appeal, and is dealt with below;
• New data or a substantially revised manuscript, which should be submitted afresh rather than appealed. Say in the cover letter that it follows an earlier declined submission, and give the manuscript ID.

How to appeal

The corresponding author writes to ceoborjss@gmail.com with “Appeal” and the manuscript ID in the subject line, within 30 days of the decision. A later appeal is considered only where there is a good reason for the delay.

The letter should contain:

• The manuscript ID, title and decision date;
• Which of the grounds above is being relied on;
• A point-by-point response to the specific reviewer or editor comments at issue, with the evidence for each;
• Where relevant, where in the manuscript the answer already appears.

Address the argument rather than the reviewers. An appeal is assessed on what it demonstrates, and one that is specific and evidenced is far more likely to succeed than one that is emphatic.

One appeal per decision. The outcome of an appeal is final, and the same manuscript is not reconsidered again.

How an appeal is handled

1. Acknowledgement within five working days, with the name of the person handling it.
2. Assignment. The appeal goes to an editor who took no part in the original decision. Where the Editor-in-Chief took it, a member of the editorial board handles the appeal.
3. Review. That editor reads the manuscript, the reports, the decision letter and the appeal. They may consult the original reviewers, seek a fresh independent review, or take advice from a board member.
4. Outcome, communicated in writing with reasons. One of three: the appeal is upheld and the manuscript returns to review or to a revision decision; it is upheld in part, with a specified further step; or it is not upheld and the original decision stands.

Appeals are decided on the merits of the manuscript, not on the vigour with which they are pressed. Most are not upheld — which is why the journal states its grounds openly, so that authors can judge before writing whether they have one.

Complaints

A complaint concerns how the journal acted rather than what it decided. The journal accepts complaints from authors, reviewers, readers and anyone else who has dealt with it, about:

• Process — a policy not followed, a stage skipped, a decision taken without the required reviews;
• Delay — a manuscript stalled well beyond the published timelines without explanation;
• Conduct — a discourteous, abusive or personal reviewer report, or unprofessional conduct by an editor or member of the editorial office;
• Discrimination — treatment turning on nationality, institution, gender, religion, seniority or language;
• Confidentiality — a breach of the confidentiality of a manuscript or of a reviewer’s identity;
• Independence — a decision that appears to have been influenced by commercial, institutional or political pressure, under editorial independence;
• Published content — an error, an ethical concern, or a copyright problem in an article;
• The website — accessibility barriers, broken functionality, or the handling of personal data under the privacy policy.

How to complain

Write to ceoborjss@gmail.com with “Complaint” in the subject line, stating what happened, when, who was involved if known, any manuscript ID, and what outcome you are seeking — an apology, a correction, a change of process, or simply that it be recorded.

Complaints are best raised within three months of what they concern, while the record is fresh, but a later complaint about something serious is still considered.

Anonymous complaints are read and acted on where they contain enough specific detail to be checked independently. The journal cannot report an outcome to an anonymous complainant, and a complaint from a named person is easier to investigate — but a concern raised anonymously is not dismissed for that reason.

How a complaint is handled

1. Acknowledgement within five working days, naming the person responsible for it.
2. Assignment to someone with no involvement in what is complained about. A complaint is never investigated by its subject.
3. Investigation. The record is examined, and anyone the complaint concerns is told what has been said and given the opportunity to respond.
4. Outcome in writing: what was found, whether the complaint is upheld in whole or in part, and what will be done about it.
5. Review. A complainant who considers the outcome inadequate may ask for it to be reviewed once by the Editor-in-Chief, or where they were involved, by the editorial board.

Where a complaint is upheld, the journal says so plainly, apologises where an apology is owed, and states what has changed. Where a reviewer report was discourteous, the journal will normally have removed the offending comments before the report reached the author; where it did not, that is a failure by the handling editor and is treated as such.

Complaints and their outcomes are recorded, so that recurring problems become visible. Persistent failure by a reviewer or editor to meet these standards leads to their removal from the journal’s roster.

Complaints about the Editor-in-Chief

A complaint about the Editor-in-Chief, or about a decision they took personally, is directed to the editorial board, which considers it without them. Mark such correspondence “For the editorial board”; the editorial office passes it on unopened.

Where a complaint concerns the conduct of the publisher — commercial pressure on editorial decisions, for instance — it is considered by the Editor-in-Chief together with the editorial board, and the outcome is reported to the complainant regardless of what it implies for the journal.

Timelines

Where a case will take longer than these targets, the journal says so and explains why, rather than leaving the person waiting.

No disadvantage for complaining

Raising an appeal or a complaint does not prejudice how you are treated afterwards. Future submissions from an author who has complained are assessed on the same terms as anyone else’s, and the fact of a complaint is not disclosed to reviewers or handling editors of later manuscripts.

The journal is aware that a junior researcher complaining about a senior figure takes a real risk. Where you ask for your identity to be withheld from the person concerned, the journal will do so wherever the investigation permits, and will tell you in advance if it cannot.

If you remain dissatisfied

Where the journal’s own review has concluded and you are still not satisfied, you may refer the matter to COPE, whose Core Practices these policies follow. COPE does not investigate individual cases or overturn editorial decisions, but it does consider whether a journal’s handling of a matter met the expected standards.

Complaints about the handling of personal data may also be raised with the relevant data protection authority — see the privacy policy.