Complaints and appeals

DOAJ, Scopus and Web of Science all look for a published route by which an author can challenge a decision or complain about process. This is ours. It follows COPE guidance on complaints and appeals.

Appealing an editorial decision

Authors may appeal a rejection once, in writing, to the journal’s editorial office, within 7 Days of the decision.

An appeal must set out specific scientific grounds: a factual error in a review, a reviewer’s misunderstanding of the methods, or evidence the editor did not have. Point to the passage in the review and explain why it is wrong.

An appeal is not a route to different reviewers, and disagreement with a reviewer’s judgement is not by itself grounds. Appeals succeed rarely; a stronger manuscript submitted to a better-fitting journal is usually the faster path.

How it is handled: the editor-in-chief reviews the file, and may consult an editor not previously involved or seek a further review. If the appeal concerns the editor-in-chief, the publishing office appoints an independent editor. The outcome — decision upheld, or manuscript reinstated for further review — is final, and is given with reasons.

An appeal does not reserve your place; you may not submit the manuscript elsewhere while the appeal is open.

Complaints

A complaint is different from an appeal. Use this route for:

• Delay, or failure to respond.
• The conduct of an editor, reviewer or member of publishing staff.
• Failure to follow the published process.
• A breach of confidentiality.
• An error in a published article that has not been addressed.
• Concerns about publication ethics — see also [publication ethics](/ethics).
• Handling of your personal data — see the privacy policy.

Where to send it

• First — the editor-in-chief of the journal concerned.
• If unresolved after 30 days, or if the complaint concerns the editor-in-chief — the publishing office. See Contact.

Say what happened, when, which manuscript or article is involved, and what outcome you are seeking.

How complaints are handled

• Acknowledged promptly.
• Investigated by someone not involved in the matter complained of.
• Answered substantively and with reasons, not with a form reply.
• Where we got something wrong, we say so, put it right, and say what we have changed.

Complaints are logged, and recurring problems are reviewed at portfolio level.

Complaints from third parties

Readers, institutions and other publishers may raise concerns about a published article. Concerns are assessed on evidence, not on the standing of the person raising them, and anonymous concerns are considered. The person raising the concern is told the outcome.

If you are still not satisfied

You may take the matter to COPE, which considers complaints about member journals’ adherence to its Core Practices, or to the relevant indexing body. We will cooperate with either. We do not require anyone to keep a complaint confidential, and we do not retaliate against complainants — a person who raises a concern in good faith will not be disadvantaged in any future dealing with our journals.