JSOMER handles complaints and appeals fairly, impartially, confidentially, transparently, proportionately, and as promptly as the nature of the matter allows. Decisions are based on relevant records, policies, correspondence, and supporting evidence.

• All relevant parties should have a reasonable opportunity to provide information.
• A person with a relevant conflict of interest must not determine the outcome.
• Information is shared only with persons or organizations having a legitimate role in resolving the matter.
• Good-faith complainants and appellants must not be subjected to retaliation.
• Submitting a complaint or appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will change.

The policy covers editorial appeals, procedural complaints, concerns about editors, reviewers, Board members, Guest Editors, the publisher or staff, post-publication concerns, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, discrimination, improper conduct, and failure to follow published policies.

An appeal asks JSOMER to reconsider a substantive editorial or publication decision. It may concern desk rejection, rejection after review, scope, research ethics, publication integrity, authorship action, correction decisions, Expressions of Concern, retractions, or another substantive editorial outcome.

A complaint concerns conduct, procedure, administration, or implementation of journal policy. It may concern delay, peer-review procedure, improper conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, discrimination, inaccurate website information, inconsistent policy application, or handling of a post-publication concern.

A single communication may contain both an appeal and a complaint. JSOMER may separate the issues and review each under the appropriate procedure.

An appeal should identify a material factual, technical, methodological, procedural, or policy-related error. Relevant grounds may include overlooked evidence, an undisclosed conflict, a serious misunderstanding, important new information that was not reasonably available earlier, or a decision materially inconsistent with the editorial record.

Disagreement with academic judgment concerning priority, significance, suitability, clarity, or contribution is not normally sufficient unless a specific error is identified. An appeal must not be used to replace the original manuscript with a substantially new work.

Appeals should normally be submitted within 30 calendar days of the decision. A later appeal may be considered when important new evidence, a serious ethics or integrity concern, a confidentiality or privacy issue, an unavoidable delay, or protection of the scholarly record justifies review.

An appeal should be concise, professional, evidence-based, and normally submitted by the corresponding author on behalf of all authors unless the matter concerns that author or an unresolved authorship dispute.

• manuscript identification number and title;
• date and type of the disputed decision;
• specific grounds for reconsideration;
• the alleged factual, technical, procedural, or policy error;
• supporting evidence;
• a focused response to the relevant editorial or reviewer comments; and
• the outcome requested.

General claims that the manuscript is important, that the authors disagree with reviewers, or that another journal might accept the work are not sufficient.

An appeal may be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, an independent editor not responsible for the original decision, an uninvolved senior Board member, or an external expert when specialist or additional independence is required.

The original editor may explain the basis of the decision but should not be the sole decision-maker when the appeal alleges that editor’s conflict of interest, procedural misconduct, discrimination, misuse of confidential information, or another conduct-related concern.

The reviewer may examine the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial correspondence, relevant policies, supporting evidence, and additional expert advice. An appeal does not automatically trigger a new peer-review process.

• confirmation or clarification of the original decision;
• reconsideration by an independent editor;
• additional or replacement peer review;
• repetition of part of the editorial process;
• invitation to submit a revised manuscript;
• modification or reversal of the original decision;
• referral to another journal policy or procedure; or
• another proportionate action.

A successful appeal does not guarantee acceptance; it may only reopen editorial assessment. JSOMER normally considers one formal appeal. A repeated appeal requires materially new evidence, a serious procedural failure, an undisclosed conflict, a significant factual correction, or information that could not reasonably have been supplied earlier.

The appeal outcome is normally final within the journal’s internal procedure unless materially new evidence becomes available.

A procedural complaint may concern unreasonable or unexplained delay, failure to follow the published review process, confidentiality breaches, unmanaged conflicts, misleading communications, denial of a reasonable opportunity to respond, or a significant discrepancy between policy and practice. Processing times are estimates rather than guarantees, and delay alone does not establish misconduct.

Complaints about editors or reviewers may concern hostile or discriminatory language, coercive citation requests, confidentiality breaches, undisclosed conflicts, misuse of privileged information, unauthorized author contact, personal attacks, bad-faith review, improper influence, or unauthorized use of artificial intelligence.

A disagreement with scholarly opinion is not itself misconduct. Depending on the evidence, JSOMER may request an explanation, disregard or replace a review, appoint a new reviewer, reassign the manuscript, repeat an assessment stage, discontinue invitations, remove an editorial role, contact an institution, or take another appropriate action.

A complaint concerning the Editor-in-Chief or publisher must not be determined solely by the person who is the subject of the complaint.

The matter may be referred to an independent senior scholar, uninvolved editor, independent Board member, appropriately constituted panel, or another qualified person or body with no relevant conflict of interest.

The person concerned may provide records and a response but must not control the inquiry or final determination. Confidential external advice may be obtained when no suitable internal reviewer is available.

Concerns about published content may involve factual or analytical error, authorship, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, data integrity, research ethics, consent, privacy, image or code integrity, duplicate publication, artificial intelligence, peer-review manipulation, copyright, licensing, or another matter affecting the scholarly record.

The concern will be reviewed under the policy most directly applicable to it. Possible outcomes include no further action, author clarification, correction, replacement of supplementary material, editorial notice, Expression of Concern, retraction, restricted access to sensitive content, or referral to an institution or another competent body.

Submitting a post-publication complaint does not give the complainant control over the inquiry or publication outcome.

A complaint should be sent to the JSOMER Editorial Office and should provide enough specific information for an initial assessment.

• complainant name and contact information, unless anonymous;
• manuscript or article title;
• manuscript number, DOI, or URL where applicable;
• a clear description of the issue;
• the relevant policy provision, if known;
• supporting evidence and prior correspondence; and
• the outcome requested.

Anonymous complaints may be considered when they contain specific, credible, and verifiable evidence. Anonymous status may limit the journal’s ability to seek clarification or communicate the outcome.

JSOMER will normally follow these steps:

1. Acknowledge receipt where appropriate.
2. Determine whether the matter falls within the journal’s responsibility.
3. Assess whether sufficient information has been provided.
4. Identify the applicable journal policy or procedure.
5. Preserve relevant editorial records.
6. Identify and manage possible conflicts of interest.
7. Assign an impartial reviewer.
8. Request responses or additional evidence where necessary.
9. Obtain specialist or external advice where appropriate.
10. Determine and document the outcome.
11. Communicate the outcome to the complainant where possible.

The precise procedure may vary according to seriousness, complexity, confidentiality, participant protection, and legal or institutional considerations.

JSOMER aims to acknowledge a formal complaint or appeal within seven working days and to provide an initial assessment or substantive response within 30 calendar days. Complex matters may require additional time, especially when they involve several publications, institutions, ethics review, technical assessment, legal advice, privacy concerns, unavailable records, or communication with another journal or publisher.

When a delay is substantial, the complainant should be informed that the review remains ongoing, although detailed interim information may be withheld to protect confidentiality and fairness.

A person whose conduct, manuscript, or article is affected will normally receive a summary of the concern, relevant evidence where appropriate, specific questions, and a response deadline. Information may be withheld when disclosure would expose participants, identify confidential complainants unnecessarily, violate law, compromise another inquiry, create retaliation risk, or reveal unrelated editorial information. Failure to respond does not prevent a decision based on the available evidence.

Complaints and appeals are handled as confidentially as reasonably possible. Information may be shared with relevant authors, editors, independent experts, the publisher for necessary administrative support, institutions, ethics bodies, funders, repositories, regulators, legal authorities, or others having a legitimate role in resolution.

Personal or sensitive information will not be disclosed more widely than necessary. Confidentiality does not prevent publication of a correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other notice required to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

JSOMER may retain correspondence, supporting documents, editorial records, responses, expert assessments, procedural decisions, and outcomes under applicable confidentiality, privacy, legal, and journal requirements. Such records are not ordinarily public unless disclosure is needed to explain a formal editorial action.

JSOMER does not tolerate retaliation against a person who raises a complaint, appeal, or integrity concern in good faith. A complaint does not need to be upheld for this protection to apply.

• Do not intimidate or threaten a complainant.
• Do not disclose a complainant’s identity improperly.
• Do not interfere with an inquiry or pressure the journal to stop legitimate review.
• Do not destroy, alter, conceal, or overwrite potentially relevant evidence.

Evidence of retaliation or interference may be treated as a separate ethical concern.

JSOMER may limit or discontinue correspondence that is abusive, threatening, discriminatory, defamatory, harassing, knowingly false, repeatedly submitted without new information, unrelated to JSOMER content, primarily disruptive, or unsupported after reasonable requests for evidence.

The journal will distinguish persistent but legitimate concern from vexatious conduct. Critical, uncomfortable, or reputationally inconvenient communication must not be rejected for those reasons alone. Where a substantive issue exists within inappropriate correspondence, JSOMER may examine the issue while setting reasonable limits on further communication.

Evidence-based feedback about articles, peer review, policies, website information, accessibility, guidance, and publication practices is welcome. JSOMER will determine whether a communication is general feedback, an appeal, a formal complaint, a correction request, a post-publication concern, an integrity allegation, a privacy issue, or a legal matter.

Complaints and appeals should normally be raised first with JSOMER so the journal has a reasonable opportunity to resolve them. Serious unresolved matters may be referred to an institution, research-integrity office, ethics committee, funder, professional organization, another publisher, repository, data controller, regulator, legal authority, or another competent body. JSOMER retains responsibility for editorial and publication decisions affecting its content.

This policy is reviewed periodically for consistency with actual journal practice, editorial independence, procedural fairness, recognized publication-ethics standards, and relevant scholarly-service requirements. Material revisions will be disclosed on the journal website.