Complaints and Appeals

General Principle

European Scientific e-Journal considers complaints and appeals as part of its responsibility to maintain transparency, fairness and accountability in scholarly publishing. Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions and other concerned parties may contact the Editorial Office when they believe that an editorial, ethical or publication-related matter requires review.

Complaints and appeals are considered on the basis of available evidence, journal policies, editorial records and the principles of academic integrity. The journal aims to distinguish between reasoned complaints requiring review and unsupported, abusive or repetitive communications that do not provide sufficient grounds for editorial action.

Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to complaints and appeals related to the editorial and publication activity of European Scientific e-Journal. It may cover issues arising before publication, during peer review, after editorial decision or after publication.

The policy may apply to the following matters:

• appeals against editorial decisions;
• concerns about the peer review process;
• complaints about editorial communication or procedural delay;
• publication ethics concerns;
• authorship, originality, plagiarism or duplicate publication issues;
• concerns about published articles, metadata or archive records;
• complaints about author fees, publication process or administrative handling;
• requests for correction, clarification or post-publication review.

Who May Submit a Complaint or Appeal

A complaint or appeal may be submitted by an author, corresponding author, co-author, reviewer, reader, editor, academic institution, indexing service, publisher representative or other party with a legitimate interest in the matter.

The Editorial Office may request confirmation of identity, affiliation or role when such information is necessary to assess the complaint or appeal properly. Anonymous complaints may be considered only when they contain sufficient evidence and concern a serious matter affecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

How to Submit a Complaint or Appeal

Complaints and appeals should be submitted to the Editorial Office by email. The message should clearly state that it is a complaint or appeal and should identify the relevant manuscript, article, author, issue, editorial decision or publication record.

The complaint or appeal should be sent to:

• pub@eiid.eu

The Editorial Office may acknowledge receipt of the complaint or appeal and may request additional information where necessary.

Information Required

To allow fair and efficient consideration, a complaint or appeal should include sufficient details and supporting information. Incomplete or unsupported submissions may be returned for clarification.

The submission should normally include:

• name and contact details of the person submitting the complaint or appeal;
• role of the submitting person in relation to the matter;
• title of the manuscript or article, where applicable;
• names of authors, issue number, publication year or article link, where applicable;
• clear description of the concern or reason for appeal;
• relevant dates, correspondence or editorial decision information;
• supporting evidence or documentation;
• requested form of review or outcome, if applicable.

Initial Assessment

After receiving a complaint or appeal, the Editorial Office performs an initial assessment to determine whether the matter falls within the scope of the journal’s responsibility and whether sufficient information has been provided.

The Editorial Office may:

• accept the complaint or appeal for further review;
• request clarification or additional documents;
• refer the matter to the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board;
• refer the matter to another policy procedure, where appropriate;
• decline to consider a complaint that is unsupported, abusive, malicious or outside the journal’s scope.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that the decision was based on a factual error, procedural irregularity, conflict of interest, misunderstanding of the manuscript or incorrect application of journal policy.

An appeal should explain why the author believes that the editorial decision requires reconsideration. The appeal should address the specific reasons provided in the editorial decision and should not merely repeat the manuscript’s arguments or request publication without new justification.

The journal may uphold the original decision, request additional review, invite a revised manuscript, or issue another editorial decision. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Appeals Concerning Peer Review

Authors may raise concerns about the peer review process if they believe that reviewer comments show evidence of factual misunderstanding, bias, conflict of interest, inappropriate tone, procedural error or failure to consider the manuscript within the journal’s academic scope.

The Editorial Board may review the peer review history, reviewer comments, editorial records and author response. Where appropriate, the manuscript may be sent for additional review or reassessed by another editor.

The identity of reviewers remains confidential unless the journal uses a specific review model that provides otherwise. Appeals must not be used to pressure reviewers or request disclosure of confidential reviewer information.

Complaints About Editorial Process

Complaints about the editorial process may concern communication, procedural delay, handling of manuscript files, unclear instructions, administrative errors or failure to apply journal procedures consistently.

The Editorial Office may review correspondence, submission records, editorial notes and publication files to determine whether a procedural problem occurred and whether corrective administrative action is required.

Complaints Related to Publication Ethics

Complaints related to publication ethics may concern plagiarism, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, fabricated sources, unreliable data, citation manipulation, peer review manipulation or other integrity issues.

Such complaints may be considered together with the journal’s Publication Ethics, Plagiarism and Originality Policy, Conflicts of Interest Policy, Authorship and Contributorship Policy, Research Misconduct Policy and Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

If a complaint concerns a published article, the Editorial Board may initiate a post-publication review and determine whether correction, expression of concern, retraction or other editorial action is required.

Complaints About Published Materials

Readers, authors or institutions may submit complaints about published materials when they identify a possible error, ethical concern, unreliable statement, incorrect metadata, authorship problem, citation problem or other issue affecting the published record.

The Editorial Board may assess the published material, request author clarification and determine whether a correction, editorial note, expression of concern or retraction should be considered.

Timeframe for Consideration

The journal aims to consider complaints and appeals within a reasonable timeframe. The time required depends on the complexity of the matter, availability of editorial records, need for author or reviewer responses, and whether institutional or technical clarification is required.

Simple administrative issues may be resolved quickly. Complex ethical matters, authorship disputes, post-publication concerns or appeals involving peer review may require additional time.

Confidentiality and Fairness

Complaints and appeals are handled with appropriate confidentiality. Information is shared only with persons who need access to it for the purpose of editorial assessment, policy application or resolution of the matter.

The journal aims to consider complaints and appeals fairly and without retaliation. Authors, reviewers, readers and other parties should not be disadvantaged for submitting a reasoned complaint or appeal in good faith.

Possible Outcomes

After reviewing a complaint or appeal, the Editorial Board or responsible editorial authority may take one or more of the following actions:

• uphold the original editorial decision;
• revise the editorial decision;
• request further review or additional assessment;
• invite manuscript revision or resubmission;
• issue clarification to the author or complainant;
• correct article metadata or publication records;
• publish a correction, editorial note or expression of concern;
• consider retraction where serious post-publication issues are confirmed;
• take administrative action to improve editorial procedures.

Final Editorial Decision

After a complaint or appeal has been reviewed, the journal may issue a final response. The final response may include a decision, explanation, request for additional action, or reference to another relevant journal policy.

Repeated appeals on the same matter may be declined unless new evidence or substantial new information is provided.

Abusive or Malicious Complaints

The journal may decline to consider complaints or appeals that are abusive, threatening, discriminatory, defamatory, knowingly false, malicious, repetitive or unrelated to the journal’s editorial responsibility.

The journal reserves the right to limit communication when correspondence becomes abusive or obstructive. However, credible concerns about publication integrity may still be reviewed when sufficient evidence is provided.

Relationship with Other Policies

This policy is connected with the journal’s Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics, Plagiarism and Originality Policy, Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy, Conflicts of Interest Policy, Authorship and Contributorship Policy, Research Misconduct Policy and Archiving and Repositories Policy.

When a complaint or appeal involves several policy areas, the Editorial Board may apply the relevant policies together in order to reach a consistent and fair editorial decision.