1. The purpose and scope of editorial appeals and complaints
An appeal asks a journal to reconsider an editorial decision on a defined basis; a complaint raises a concern about conduct, process, communication or another aspect of journal operations. They can overlap, but they should not be treated as interchangeable. A well-designed process identifies the issue, the appropriate decision-maker and the outcome that the journal has authority to provide.
Editors should distinguish disagreement with scholarly judgment from a credible allegation of procedural error, factual misunderstanding, conflict of interest or inappropriate conduct. An author’s disagreement alone does not establish that the original decision was defective; equally, a decision should not be shielded from examination merely because editorial judgment was involved.
The process should be accessible, consistent with published journal and publisher policies, respectful to all parties and proportionate to the issue raised. A case may require clarification, independent reconsideration, correction of a procedural failure or referral to a separate integrity process.
2. Separate appeals, complaints and research-integrity allegations
At intake, determine whether the submission seeks reconsideration of a rejection or revision decision, reports unfair treatment, alleges a reviewer or editor conflict, disputes a publication charge, identifies a technical or administrative error, or raises a concern about research integrity. Some correspondence includes several distinct issues and may need more than one procedural track.
An appeal should ordinarily focus on the grounds for reconsidering a particular decision. A complaint may concern the manner in which a manuscript was handled even when the publication decision remains scientifically defensible. Integrity allegations involving fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or manipulation require the journal’s relevant confidential integrity procedure rather than a routine appeal alone.
Explain to the correspondent which track will be used and, where possible, separate the questions that can be resolved editorially from those requiring specialist review, publisher governance or institutional involvement.
3. Publish clear routes and reasonable submission requirements
Authors and other stakeholders should be able to find the journal’s route for appeals and complaints without searching through unrelated policies. The published instructions should identify an appropriate contact channel, the type of information needed and any applicable submission window established by the journal.
A useful appeal identifies the manuscript and decision, explains the specific basis for reconsideration and provides relevant supporting material. A complaint should identify the conduct or process at issue and provide enough detail for a meaningful response. Editors should avoid demanding unnecessary personal information or burdensome documentation at intake.
Where a submission is unclear, request focused clarification instead of dismissing it on a technicality. If a time limit applies, handle exceptional circumstances consistently under the journal’s documented rules rather than inventing ad hoc deadlines.
4. Acknowledge receipt and establish a reliable case record
Acknowledge receipt through the approved editorial or publisher channel, confirm the manuscript or matter concerned and explain the next procedural step where it can be disclosed. Acknowledgment is not acceptance of the allegations or a commitment to overturn the decision.
Create a case record containing the original correspondence, manuscript history, relevant decision letters, reviewer reports, disclosed conflicts, communications and subsequent actions. Identify who has authority to manage the case and who may access its materials.
Keep appeal and complaint records distinct enough to support confidentiality and governance while linking them to the relevant manuscript record where appropriate. Avoid informal forwarding chains and personal inboxes as the sole source of the case history.
5. Conduct an initial scope and credibility assessment
The initial assessment asks whether the journal is the appropriate body to address the issue, whether the matter is sufficiently specific to evaluate and whether any urgent safeguards are needed. It should not prejudge the merits of the original editorial decision or the motives of the complainant.
Identify whether the correspondence raises a verifiable factual error, an overlooked document, a plausible conflict, an inconsistency with published procedure, inappropriate communication or a request simply to repeat the original review. The appropriate response depends on the nature and materiality of the issue.
Anonymous complaints should be assessed on the quality and specificity of the information available. Where evidence is insufficient, document the limitation and explain, when a safe contact route exists, what further information would permit assessment.
6. Ensure independence and manage conflicts in case handling
An appeal should not automatically be decided solely by the editor whose judgment is challenged. The journal’s policy should determine when another editor, editor-in-chief, appeals editor or authorized governance body conducts or oversees reassessment. The person handling the case must disclose relevant relationships or interests.
A complaint about the conduct of an editor or reviewer may require an independent handler who was not directly involved in the disputed events. When the editor-in-chief is implicated, the publisher’s established governance route should be used rather than asking the subject of the complaint to adjudicate it.
Independence does not require the new handler to disregard the original decision. It requires an open assessment of the specified grounds, access to the relevant record and freedom from improper influence.
7. Define the grounds for a substantive editorial appeal
A substantive appeal may identify a material factual misunderstanding, a demonstrable procedural error, a relevant conflict that was not appropriately managed, a significant misinterpretation of evidence or information that the journal’s policy permits it to consider after the decision. The appeal should explain why the alleged issue could have affected the outcome.
Editors should distinguish a reasoned challenge from a demand for additional reviewers solely because the initial reviews were unfavorable. Peer review involves judgment, and the existence of competing scholarly opinions does not by itself establish a defective decision.
When an appeal raises a plausible issue, formulate the question for reassessment narrowly. For example, determine whether a reviewer’s central methodological criticism relied on an incorrect description of the study, rather than reopening every aspect of the manuscript without justification.
8. Reconstruct the decision fairly from the existing record
Review the original submission, decision rationale, reviewer reports, author responses and material correspondence. Establish what the original editor knew at the time and which concerns actually drove the outcome. Do not assume that the strongest-sounding reviewer recommendation was the decisive reason.
Compare the appeal’s claims with the documented record. If the decision letter misstated a factual point, assess whether that mistake was material to the outcome. If the letter communicated the rationale poorly but the underlying decision remains supported, a clarification may be appropriate even without reversing the decision.
Keep the original decision and the reassessment analytically distinct. The appeal handler should record both what was originally decided and what the new review of the specified grounds establishes.
9. Decide when additional expertise or independent review is needed
Some appeals can be resolved by examining the manuscript record and published policy. Others require specialist advice because the dispute concerns statistics, methodology, technical interpretation or a field-specific issue outside the appeal handler’s expertise.
Before requesting another reviewer, define the precise question the additional assessment must answer. Avoid commissioning an unrestricted new review merely to obtain a different recommendation or to settle a disagreement by vote.
Any external expert should undergo appropriate expertise, identity and conflict checks and receive only the confidential material needed. The appeal handler remains responsible for integrating that advice into the journal’s final response.
10. Handle complaints about peer-review quality and reviewer conduct
A complaint may allege superficial assessment, irrelevant criticism, coercive citation requests, discriminatory or abusive language, undisclosed conflicts or improper handling of confidential material. Review the specific report and the journal’s handling of it rather than inferring misconduct from the author’s dissatisfaction.
Editors should evaluate whether inappropriate reviewer material influenced the decision, whether the original editor filtered or addressed unsuitable comments and whether the manuscript received the independent assessment required by policy.
Where a reviewer’s conduct warrants action, manage the reviewer relationship through the appropriate confidential process. Correcting a problematic report or removing a reviewer from future invitations is separate from determining whether the manuscript should receive a different editorial outcome.
11. Address complaints involving editors, delays and communication
Complaints about editors can concern undisclosed conflicts, inconsistent application of policy, disrespectful communication, unexplained delays or apparent interference with peer review. The case handler should examine documented events and give relevant parties a fair opportunity to explain their actions.
Operational problems may justify an acknowledgment, explanation, reassignment, correction of the record or process improvement even when the manuscript’s scientific outcome does not change. Conversely, a serious procedural problem may require independent reconsideration of the decision.
Unavoidable delays should be explained as far as confidentiality permits. Do not make promises about acceptance, investigation findings or completion dates that the journal cannot responsibly guarantee.
12. Handle complaints involving confidentiality and personal information
Appeal and complaint files may contain unpublished research, confidential reviewer identities, private correspondence, sensitive allegations and personal information. Limit access to authorized personnel and share material only as required by the journal’s review model and the applicable procedure.
Do not disclose a confidential reviewer’s identity merely because an author challenges a report. Similarly, do not promise absolute anonymity to a complainant if the procedure may require limited disclosure for a fair response.
If the complaint identifies a possible data or confidentiality incident, use the publisher’s incident-response route promptly. A confidentiality breach may require protective action independently of the outcome of the underlying appeal.
13. Treat allegations of bias, discrimination and retaliation seriously
An allegation of bias or discriminatory treatment requires attention to the specific events, language, decisions and comparable procedural standards involved. Do not dismiss the complaint solely because the original scientific decision could otherwise be justified.
Assess the evidence without assuming the allegation is true or false. An independent handler may need to review correspondence, reviewer comments, conflict disclosures and relevant journal practices. Personal information should be handled carefully and only as necessary.
Authors, reviewers and complainants should not face retaliatory editorial treatment for raising concerns through established channels. Equally, the process should provide fair treatment to individuals whose conduct is questioned.
14. Manage multiple, repetitive or escalated correspondence
Repeated messages may reflect unresolved uncertainty, a genuinely incomplete response or attempts to reopen a matter without new grounds. Review the case history before deciding how to respond and avoid treating persistence itself as proof that a complaint lacks merit.
Where the journal has completed a fair review and no material new evidence is presented, it may communicate that the internal process is concluded under its published policy. The message should summarize the procedural status and identify any established further route where one exists.
Escalation to publisher governance should follow documented authority and should not be used merely to transfer an uncomfortable case. Preserve a single coherent record so that additional handlers do not restart the process without understanding earlier steps.
15. Choose and communicate a proportionate appeal outcome
Possible outcomes include upholding the original decision, clarifying its rationale, correcting a procedural defect, reopening editorial consideration, obtaining targeted further review or taking another action permitted by policy. A successful procedural complaint does not necessarily establish that the manuscript should be accepted.
The outcome should address the grounds actually raised and identify the evidence and policy considerations that mattered. If an issue remains unresolved because necessary information is unavailable, communicate that limitation accurately rather than implying certainty.
Where a decision is reopened, explain the next stage and its limits. Reconsideration is not a promise of acceptance; it is a commitment to a fair process that addresses the identified issue.
16. Separate complaint remedies from publication decisions
Some complaints reveal failures in communication, staff conduct, confidentiality controls or workflow that deserve correction independent of manuscript merit. The journal should not require authors to win a scientific appeal before acknowledging a legitimate administrative or procedural problem.
Potential remedies can include correcting an inaccurate message, providing a fuller explanation, changing the responsible editor, addressing inappropriate reviewer comments or revising internal procedures. Any change to the publication decision should be supported by a separate editorial rationale.
Document both the complaint outcome and any related manuscript decision so that future staff can distinguish operational remediation from scientific reassessment.
17. Coordinate with integrity, institutional and legal procedures
If an appeal or complaint reveals a credible research-integrity issue, refer that issue to the appropriate confidential integrity process while preserving the fairness of the appeal. Do not use an appeal as an informal investigation into alleged misconduct.
Some complaints may require institutional involvement, publisher-level governance, data-protection expertise or legal advice. The journal should refer questions beyond its authority through approved channels and avoid promising that external bodies will reach a particular conclusion.
Parallel procedures should be coordinated to prevent inconsistent communications, unnecessary disclosure or a decision that pre-empts unresolved factual questions. Record which process is responsible for each issue.
18. Set communication standards and realistic timelines
At each meaningful stage, communicate what the journal can share: acknowledgment, scope of review, requests for information, procedural updates and the final outcome. Timelines should reflect the complexity of the case and any necessary independent expertise.
Use neutral and professional language. Avoid dismissive formulations, unsupported allegations and defensive repetition of the original decision. A response should be understandable to someone who was not part of the editorial deliberations.
Where a case takes longer than expected, provide an update when appropriate without revealing protected information or implying that delay predicts the outcome.
19. Close the case with an auditable and protected record
Case closure should identify the issues considered, relevant evidence, decision-maker, conflict-management steps, procedural actions, outcome and communications. Record why additional review was or was not commissioned and how material contradictions were addressed.
Store records in approved systems under applicable access and retention requirements. Do not circulate complaint files informally or retain unnecessary sensitive information. Where separate integrity or institutional processes continue, distinguish the completed appeal from the outstanding referral.
Use recurring complaint themes to improve author instructions, reviewer guidance, editorial training and decision-letter quality. Process improvement should be based on documented patterns rather than speculative judgments about individuals.
20. A repeatable appeals-and-complaints framework
Begin by classifying the submission: appeal, complaint, integrity allegation or a combination. Acknowledge receipt, preserve the record, identify an independent and authorized handler, and define the specific questions that require assessment.
Evaluate the grounds against the original record and published policy. Seek targeted clarification or specialist input when needed, protect confidentiality and give relevant parties an appropriate opportunity to respond. Keep publication-related judgment separate from procedural remedies.
Conclude with a proportionate, reasoned outcome and a clear communication of what happens next. The standard is not to guarantee that every correspondent agrees with the result; it is to provide a fair, consistent, independent and documented process.