1. Principles of Fair Handling

Complaints and appeals are handled according to the following principles:

• impartiality;
• procedural fairness;
• appropriate independence;
• proportionate consideration of the matter raised;
• appropriate confidentiality;
• avoidance and management of conflicts of interest;
• reasoned decision-making;
• adequate internal documentation;
• respect for the rights and legitimate interests of all persons concerned.

Submission of a complaint or appeal does not itself establish that misconduct, procedural failure, error, or other wrongdoing has occurred.

The Journal considers the available information before reaching any determination.

Persons involved in the handling of a complaint or appeal should not participate where a relevant conflict of interest could reasonably affect their impartiality.

The Journal should not disadvantage a person merely because that person has submitted a complaint or appeal in good faith.

2. Difference Between a Complaint and an Appeal

3. Who May Submit

A complaint may be submitted by:

• an author;
• a reviewer;
• an editor;
• a reader;
• a research or academic institution;
• another person or organisation with a legitimate concern relating to the Journal’s processes, conduct, or published content.

An appeal against an editorial decision may be submitted by the author or authors of the manuscript affected by that decision.

Where several authors are involved, the Journal may communicate primarily with the corresponding author or another author authorised to represent the author group.

4. How to Submit a Complaint or Appeal

Complaints and appeals should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office using the official contact information published by the Journal.

The submission should, where applicable, include:

• the name and contact details of the person submitting the matter;
• the manuscript ID, article DOI, Review ID, or other relevant identifier;
• a clear description of the complaint or grounds for appeal;
• the relevant decision, communication, event, or conduct concerned;
• supporting information or documentation where available;
• the outcome or remedy sought, where appropriate.

An appeal should explain why reconsideration of the editorial decision is requested and identify the substantive grounds relied upon.

The Journal may request clarification or additional information where the submission does not contain sufficient information for appropriate consideration.

5. Initial Scope and Admissibility Review

Following receipt, the Journal conducts an initial review to determine:

• whether the matter falls within the Journal’s responsibility;
• whether it should be treated as a complaint, an appeal, or another type of matter;
• whether sufficient information has been provided to proceed;
• whether another Journal policy or procedure provides the appropriate route;
• whether a conflict of interest requires the matter to be assigned to another competent person.

This initial review does not determine whether the complaint or appeal is substantively justified.

Where appropriate, a matter may be redirected for handling under another Journal policy, including:

• Publication Ethics;
• Peer Review Process;
• Review Ethics;
• Corrections and Retractions Policy;
• Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy;
• Generative AI Policy;
• another applicable Journal policy or procedure.

Where the matter clearly falls outside the Journal’s responsibility, the person submitting it should be informed accordingly.

6. Handling of Complaints

Complaints are considered by an appropriate non-conflicted editorial authority having regard to the subject and nature of the complaint.

The Editorial Office may:

• acknowledge receipt;
• collect relevant records and correspondence;
• provide administrative information;
• request clarification;
• facilitate communication required for consideration of the matter.

Routine administrative or service issues may be resolved administratively where no contested scholarly judgement, allegation of misconduct, or significant conflict of interest is involved.

Where substantive consideration is required, the competent non-conflicted editorial authority may:

• review relevant editorial or administrative records;
• obtain an explanation from persons involved;
• consider relevant Journal policies and procedures;
• request additional information;
• determine whether procedural or administrative action is required;
• refer the matter to another applicable Journal procedure where necessary.

The person whose conduct is the subject of a complaint should not determine the merits of that complaint.

7. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Appeals against editorial decisions are considered separately from ordinary complaints.

The appeal review should be conducted by a qualified non-conflicted Editorial Board member or an appropriately designated independent editor who was not materially involved in the original editorial determination, where reasonably practicable.

The person conducting the appeal review considers, as appropriate:

• the grounds stated in the appeal;
• the original editorial decision;
• relevant reviewer reports;
• relevant editorial assessments;
• manuscript and revision history;
• author responses;
• applicable Journal policies;
• any material procedural issue or conflict-of-interest concern.

The purpose of the appeal review is not automatically to repeat the entire peer-review process.

The appeal reviewer determines whether the available information provides a substantive basis for further editorial reconsideration.

The appeal review may recommend:

• that the original decision be maintained;
• that the matter undergo further editorial assessment;
• that additional independent peer review be obtained;
• that a specific procedural issue be corrected before reconsideration;
• another appropriate editorial step.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has no relevant conflict of interest, the final editorial determination following the appeal review remains with the Editor-in-Chief.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest or cannot appropriately participate, final editorial authority is transferred to a qualified non-conflicted Editorial Board member or appropriately designated independent editor in accordance with the Journal’s conflict-of-interest governance model.

An appeal reviewer does not acquire permanent editorial authority by virtue of conducting an appeal review.

Related: Editorial Policies·Peer Review Process

8. Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Any person involved in handling a complaint or appeal must disclose a relevant conflict of interest where one exists or may reasonably be perceived to exist.

A person with a relevant conflict should not determine the merits or outcome of the matter.

Where necessary, responsibility is transferred to:

• a qualified non-conflicted Editorial Board member; or
• an appropriately designated independent editor.

The Journal should seek, where reasonably practicable, to ensure that substantive reconsideration of an appeal is not conducted by the same person whose contested judgement is the principal subject of that appeal.

Independence is assessed in light of the circumstances of the specific matter rather than solely by institutional title or position.

9. Complaints Concerning the Editor-in-Chief

Where a complaint directly concerns:

• the conduct of the Editor-in-Chief;
• a conflict of interest involving the Editor-in-Chief;
• an editorial process personally handled by the Editor-in-Chief;
• another matter in which the Editor-in-Chief cannot act impartially,

the Editor-in-Chief must not determine the merits of the complaint.

The complaint is handled by a qualified non-conflicted Editorial Board member or appropriately designated independent editor.

The Editor-in-Chief may be asked to provide information or records necessary for consideration of the matter but does not control the determination of the complaint.

Where the complaint also affects an editorial decision, final editorial authority is transferred where necessary in accordance with the Journal’s established conflict-of-interest provisions.

10. Complaints Concerning the Publisher

The Publisher is responsible for administrative, contractual, production, technical, platform, metadata, dissemination, licensing, preservation, and other publishing functions within the scope defined by the Journal’s Editorial Policies.

Where a complaint concerns the Publisher or a person acting on behalf of the Publisher, the Publisher must not determine the merits of the complaint against itself.

Substantive consideration is undertaken by an appropriate non-conflicted editorial authority.

The Publisher may provide:

• relevant records;
• administrative information;
• technical information;
• contractual information;
• explanations concerning publishing operations,

where such information is necessary to consider the complaint.

Where corrective administrative or technical action is required following the determination, the Publisher may implement that action within its operational responsibilities.

Complaints concerning the Publisher do not give the Publisher authority to reconsider the scholarly merits of a manuscript or editorial decision.

Related: Editorial Policies

11. Research-Integrity and Publication-Ethics Concerns

Where a complaint raises a possible issue involving:

• plagiarism;
• fabrication or falsification;
• authorship misconduct;
• citation manipulation;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• peer-review manipulation;
• inappropriate use of generative AI;
• unethical research practices;
• another research-integrity or publication-ethics concern,

the complaint may serve as the basis for initiating consideration under the Journal’s Publication Ethics procedures.

The Complaints and Appeals Policy does not itself determine whether research misconduct occurred.

A person raising such a concern is not expected to conduct an independent investigation.

The Journal determines the appropriate ethics procedure and considers the available information in accordance with the applicable policy.

A numerical similarity score alone does not constitute a finding of plagiarism or misconduct.

Related: Publication Ethics·Review Ethics·Generative AI Policy

12. Complaints Concerning Published Content

A complaint may concern an article or other content already published by the Journal.

Where the complaint raises a matter potentially affecting:

• the reliability of the scholarly record;
• accuracy of published information;
• authorship;
• research integrity;
• publication ethics;
• the need for a correction, retraction, or another post-publication action,

the matter is considered under the relevant post-publication policy or procedure.

A complaint may trigger consideration under such a procedure, but the complaint itself does not constitute:

• a correction;
• a retraction;
• a finding of misconduct;
• an administrative article withdrawal;
• another alteration of the published scholarly record.

Administrative Article Withdrawal remains a separate administrative and contractual process and must not be used as a substitute for scientific correction or retraction.

Related: Publication Ethics·Corrections and Retractions Policy·Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy

13. Possible Outcomes

The appropriate outcome depends on the nature and merits of the matter.

A complaint may result in, for example:

• a finding that no further action is required;
• clarification or explanation;
• correction of an administrative or procedural error;
• reassignment of responsibility because of a conflict of interest;
• improvement of an editorial or administrative process;
• further editorial assessment;
• referral to Publication Ethics or another applicable procedure;
• correction of technical, administrative, or website information;
• another proportionate action within the Journal’s authority.

An appeal may result in:

• maintenance of the original editorial decision;
• further editorial assessment;
• additional independent peer review;
• correction of a material procedural problem;
• reconsideration of the editorial decision by the competent editorial authority.

Where further editorial assessment results in a new editorial determination, the resulting decision may be Accept, Revise, or Reject in accordance with the Journal’s Editorial Policies and Peer Review Process.

A complaint or appeal does not itself authorise a person outside the competent editorial authority to alter an editorial decision.

14. Communication of the Outcome

The Journal communicates the outcome of a complaint or appeal in writing.

The communication should provide a reasoned explanation appropriate to:

• the nature of the matter;
• the information available;
• applicable confidentiality obligations;
• protection of peer-review anonymity;
• protection of personal or legally protected information;
• legitimate interests of other persons involved.

The Journal is not required to disclose confidential peer-review records, reviewer identities, personal data, legally protected information, or information concerning third parties where disclosure would be inappropriate.

Where further action under another Journal policy is required, the person submitting the matter may be informed that the matter has been referred to the relevant procedure.

15. Confidentiality

Complaints and appeals are handled with appropriate confidentiality.

Information is shared only to the extent reasonably necessary to:

• understand the matter;
• obtain relevant information or responses;
• protect procedural fairness;
• resolve the complaint or appeal;
• comply with legal, ethical, or institutional obligations.

The Journal does not guarantee absolute confidentiality where disclosure of limited information is reasonably necessary for fair and effective handling.

Double-blind peer-review information and reviewer identities remain protected in accordance with the Journal’s peer-review and confidentiality requirements.

Allegations should not be presented as established findings before appropriate consideration has occurred.

16. Records and Documentation

The Journal maintains appropriate internal records relating to complaints and appeals.

Records may include:

• the original submission;
• relevant manuscript or article identifiers;
• material correspondence;
• relevant editorial or administrative records;
• conflict-of-interest disclosures;
• assessments undertaken;
• decisions and reasons;
• actions taken;
• referral to another procedure where applicable.

Records are maintained for purposes of:

• accountability;
• consistency of decision-making;
• institutional memory;
• improvement of editorial and administrative processes;
• demonstration of appropriate handling where required.

Internal documentation does not imply that complaint or appeal files are publicly accessible.

17. Repeated, Abusive, or Manifestly Unsupported Submissions

The Journal should consider the substance of a complaint or appeal rather than dismissing it merely because the person submitting it has previously raised another concern.

Where a matter has already been adequately considered and a subsequent submission raises no materially new information, evidence, or procedural issue, the Journal may close the repetitive correspondence after providing an appropriate explanation.

New substantive evidence or materially new information should be considered on its merits.

The Journal may set proportionate limits on correspondence that is:

• persistently repetitive without new substantive information;
• threatening;
• harassing;
• discriminatory;
• abusive;
• manifestly unrelated to a legitimate Journal matter.

The presence of inappropriate language does not, by itself, remove the Journal’s responsibility to consider any substantive and credible issue contained within the communication.

Measures taken to manage abusive or repetitive correspondence should not be used to suppress legitimate criticism or good-faith concerns.

18. External Escalation

The Journal’s internal complaints or appeals procedure should normally be used before external escalation is considered.

After the applicable internal procedure has been completed, a person may refer the matter to an appropriate external organisation, institution, regulator, professional body, or other competent entity where:

• such a route is available;
• the matter falls within that body’s remit;
• external referral is otherwise appropriate.

This Policy does not create or guarantee jurisdiction for any external organisation over the Journal or a particular complaint.

The Journal may refer to relevant international publication-ethics guidance, including applicable COPE guidance, when considering complex matters.

Where an external authority properly requests information, the Journal may cooperate subject to applicable law, confidentiality obligations, data protection requirements, and protection of peer-review information.

19. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This Policy forms part of the Journal’s broader editorial and publishing governance framework.

It should be read together with, where relevant:

• Editorial Policies;
• Publication Ethics;
• Peer Review Process;
• Review Ethics;
• Guidelines for Reviewers;
• Corrections and Retractions Policy;
• Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy;
• Generative AI Policy;
• other applicable Journal policies and procedures.

Where a complaint or appeal raises an issue governed principally by another policy, the matter may be redirected to or considered under that policy.

Redirection does not mean that the original concern is disregarded; it identifies the procedure best suited to determine the matter.

20. Policy Governance and Review

This Policy is owned by the Editorial Board of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert” and approved by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

The Policy is reviewed periodically and may be revised in response to:

• changes in the Journal’s editorial or publishing procedures;
• experience gained from handling complaints and appeals;
• changes to related Journal policies;
• developments in publication ethics and scholarly publishing;
• relevant international guidance;
• applicable legal or regulatory requirements.

Material revisions are identified through the version number, effective date, and review date displayed at the beginning of this Policy.

Where revision of this Policy affects another Journal policy, procedure, form, or operational instruction, the related materials should be reviewed for consistency.

↑ Back to Policy Contents