Complaints & Appeals Policy

This policy may apply to concerns involving:

• editorial decisions;
• peer-review procedures;
• reviewer conduct;
• editor conduct;
• conflicts of interest;
• publication delays or communication failures;
• authorship disputes;
• research-integrity concerns;
• post-publication actions;
• privacy or confidentiality;
• billing or administrative matters;
• publisher conduct;
• special-issue handling; or
• other journal processes capable of materially affecting fairness or integrity.

Different concerns may require different procedures. An appeal against a rejection decision is not handled identically to an allegation of plagiarism, reviewer misconduct, or publisher interference.

Editorial Appeal

An appeal is a request to reconsider an editorial decision because the appellant believes that a material factual, procedural, methodological, or conflict-related problem affected the outcome.

Complaint

A complaint concerns the conduct, procedure, communication, service, administration, or fairness of a journal process.

Publication-Integrity Allegation

An allegation concerning fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated peer review, unethical research, authorship misconduct, undisclosed competing interests, or another serious integrity matter is assessed under the Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement, even if it was initially submitted as a complaint.

A concern may be raised by:

• authors;
• co-authors;
• reviewers;
• editors;
• Editorial Board members;
• readers;
• research participants where relevant;
• research institutions;
• ethics committees;
• funders;
• professional bodies;
• other journals or publishers; or
• other persons with a legitimate basis for the concern.

A person is not required to prove misconduct before reporting a credible integrity concern.

Submissions should ordinarily include:

• the complainant's name and contact information;
• the manuscript number, article DOI, title, or URL where applicable;
• a clear description of the decision, process, or conduct being challenged;
• the specific reasons for the complaint or appeal;
• relevant supporting correspondence or documentation;
• the remedy or reconsideration being requested; and
• any relevant competing interest of the complainant.

Submissions should be sent to:

Editorial Office
editor@jpmhr.com

Publisher-level administrative matters may be sent to: info@bmuventures.com.

Appropriate grounds may include:

• a material factual misunderstanding;
• a significant methodological misunderstanding;
• a procedural irregularity;
• evidence of reviewer or editor conflict of interest;
• evidence that material information was overlooked;
• substantive reviewer misconduct; or
• another identifiable problem capable of materially affecting the decision.

An appeal should explain specifically why the original decision may have been materially affected.

Mere disagreement with reviewer criticism or disappointment with a rejection decision does not, by itself, constitute sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

Submission of an appeal does not automatically:

• reverse the original decision;
• require appointment of new reviewers;
• restart peer review;
• guarantee acceptance;
• permit indefinite rounds of reconsideration; or
• suspend an unrelated publication-integrity investigation.

The purpose is to determine whether the challenged decision should be upheld, reconsidered, or procedurally corrected.

Review may include consideration of:

• the submitted manuscript;
• reviewer reports;
• author responses;
• editorial correspondence;
• the original decision rationale;
• the grounds of appeal;
• relevant journal policies; and
• additional expert advice where necessary.

Possible outcomes include:

• upholding the original decision;
• reconsideration by another editor;
• additional independent peer review;
• replacement of an inappropriate or conflicted review;
• return to revision;
• correction of a procedural error; or
• another proportionate editorial remedy.

Concerns may involve:

• undisclosed competing interests;
• personal attacks;
• discriminatory or abusive language;
• confidentiality breaches;
• attempted author contact;
• coercive citation requests;
• misuse of unpublished information;
• fabricated reviewer identity;
• AI-related confidentiality breaches;
• deliberate obstruction or bad-faith review; or
• other material departures from reviewer responsibilities.

Reviewer criticism that is scientifically robust, even if strongly expressed, is not misconduct merely because an author disagrees with it.

Complaints may concern:

• unmanaged conflicts of interest;
• bias or discriminatory treatment;
• inappropriate disclosure of confidential information;
• failure to recuse;
• material departure from published editorial procedure;
• publisher or commercial interference;
• inappropriate handling of an integrity concern;
• abusive or unprofessional communication; or
• other material editorial misconduct.

The editor directly implicated in a complaint must not be the sole adjudicator of that complaint.

Depending on the nature of the matter, responsibility may be assigned to:

• another sufficiently independent senior editor;
• an appropriately constituted editorial committee;
• a publisher representative who has no conflict concerning the matter;
• an independent external adviser; or
• another competent person or body appropriate to the concern.

Publisher involvement in such a complaint does not authorise the publisher to substitute commercial preferences for scholarly editorial judgement.

Such concerns may involve:

• billing or payment disputes;
• commercial interference with editorial decisions;
• privacy or data-security matters;
• technical administration;
• misrepresentation of journal status;
• website or publication access issues;
• advertising or sponsorship concerns; or
• other publisher-level administrative conduct.

Where the complaint concerns a specific publisher representative, that person should not be the sole person determining the outcome.

Examples include allegations of:

• fabrication;
• falsification;
• plagiarism;
• duplicate publication;
• authorship misconduct;
• peer-review manipulation;
• unethical research;
• fabricated ethics approval;
• undisclosed material competing interests;
• data or image manipulation; or
• other serious publication misconduct.

The journal may preserve relevant evidence, seek explanations, obtain specialist assessment, communicate with institutions, and take appropriate scholarly-record action.

The journal considers:

• specificity of the allegation;
• quality of supporting evidence;
• whether the matter can be independently assessed;
• potential seriousness of the concern; and
• whether a legitimate investigative pathway exists.

Anonymous allegations unsupported by sufficient information may be impossible to investigate, but anonymity itself is not evidence of bad faith.

Retaliation may include inappropriate:

• editorial disadvantage;
• reviewer exclusion;
• threats;
• harassment;
• disclosure of confidential identity;
• pressure to withdraw a legitimate concern; or
• other adverse treatment because a good-faith concern was raised.

Deliberate fabrication of allegations, falsification of evidence, or knowingly malicious misuse of the complaints process may itself warrant appropriate action.

Relevant information may be shared with:

• independent editors;
• journal management;
• publisher representatives where appropriate;
• reviewers or experts consulted for the matter;
• authors or other persons required to respond;
• institutions or ethics bodies where necessary; or
• competent authorities where legitimately required.

The journal cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality where disclosure is necessary for procedural fairness, investigation, or legal compliance.

Recusal may be required where the person:

• made the challenged decision;
• is the subject of the complaint;
• is a close collaborator of a party;
• has a financial or personal interest in the outcome;
• is involved in the disputed research; or
• has another material relationship capable of affecting impartiality.

As an operational objective, JPMHR aims to:

• acknowledge a substantive complaint or appeal within approximately 3 working days where practicable;
• conduct an initial assessment promptly after sufficient information is received; and
• provide a reasoned outcome as soon as reasonably possible.

Straightforward matters may be resolved quickly. Complex concerns may require additional time because of:

• independent editorial assessment;
• reviewer consultation;
• requests for supporting records;
• specialist expert review;
• institutional investigation;
• multiple parties;
• privacy or legal considerations; or
• the need to preserve due process.

These are service targets rather than guaranteed deadlines.

An outcome may:

• uphold the original decision;
• identify a procedural error;
• require reconsideration;
• require another reviewer or editor;
• correct administrative information;
• initiate an integrity investigation;
• require a published correction or other notice;
• resolve a billing or service issue; or
• take another proportionate corrective action.

Confidential information concerning other persons, reviewer identity, institutional investigations, or legally protected information may not be disclosed merely because a complainant requests it.

After a properly reviewed appeal has been resolved, a further reconsideration may be declined unless:

• material new evidence becomes available;
• a previously unknown conflict is identified;
• a significant procedural defect is established;
• an external institutional finding materially changes the facts; or
• another substantial reason justifies reopening the matter.

Repeated submissions that merely restate arguments already considered may be closed without restarting the full review process.

JPMHR may limit or redirect communications containing:

• credible threats;
• harassment;
• discriminatory abuse;
• repeated personal attacks;
• deliberate disclosure of confidential information;
• impersonation;
• malicious mass messaging; or
• other conduct that materially interferes with legitimate journal operations.

Restriction of abusive communication does not extinguish a legitimate underlying complaint. Where possible, the substantive issue should still be separated from the inappropriate manner in which it was communicated.

Where appropriate, JPMHR may communicate with:

• universities;
• research institutions;
• employers;
• ethics committees;
• funders;
• professional regulators;
• other journals or publishers; or
• competent legal or regulatory authorities.

External referral does not remove JPMHR's responsibility to determine what editorial or scholarly-record action is required within the journal.

A complaint about a published article may involve:

• a factual error;
• an undisclosed conflict;
• data integrity;
• authorship;
• ethical approval;
• privacy;
• plagiarism;
• interpretation;
• citation;
• participant consent; or
• another material issue.

Scientific disagreement does not automatically require correction or retraction. Where appropriate, scholarly criticism may instead be addressed through commentary, correspondence, or author response.

• COPE Guidance and Resources
• ICMJE Recommendations
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Reference to external guidance does not imply membership, accreditation, certification, or endorsement unless independently established.