Complaint Handling Procedure

Editorial Integrity & Accountability

Complaints may be submitted by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, industry representatives, or other stakeholders concerning:

• Editorial decisions or peer-review procedures;
• Plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, authorship disputes, undeclared conflicts of interest, or other research misconduct;
• Misuse, misrepresentation, or inappropriate disclosure of logistics, transportation, organizational, supply-chain, or commercially sensitive data;
• Errors, inaccuracies, or potentially misleading information in published articles; or
• Breaches of journal policy or accepted publishing practices.

Complaints must be submitted in writing to [email protected] with the subject: Complaint – [Manuscript ID / Article DOI].

Please include:

• Name and contact details, or a request for anonymity where appropriate;
• Manuscript ID, DOI, article title, or other relevant reference;
• A clear description of the issue and supporting evidence;
• Any relevant information concerning data integrity, confidentiality, commercial sensitivity, ethical approval, organizational authorization, or research integrity; and
• Your relationship to the manuscript, research, or journal.

Receipt of a complaint will normally be acknowledged within 5 business days. The journal will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether further investigation is required.

Where appropriate, the case will be handled by an independent editor or panel not involved in the original decision. Additional information may be requested from authors, reviewers, institutions, companies, research organizations, or other relevant parties. Particular care will be taken to protect confidential business, logistics, transportation, customer, supplier, and supply-chain information. COPE guidance will be followed where applicable.

The journal aims to reach an outcome within 6 weeks, although complex cases involving institutional investigations, commercial confidentiality, data integrity, authorship disputes, research ethics, or external parties may require additional time.

The complainant will be informed in writing of the outcome and, where relevant, any corrective action, such as a correction, expression of concern, retraction, reassessment of an editorial decision, or procedural improvement. Confidentiality will be maintained unless disclosure is required by law, ethical obligation, formal investigation, or legitimate institutional process.

If the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome, a request for reconsideration may be submitted to a senior Editorial Board member or the publisher. Appeals should identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and, where possible, provide new or relevant evidence. Where appropriate, guidance may also be sought from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).