Complaints & Appeals Policy

Fundamental Scientific Reports in Multidisciplinary Areas (FSRMA) is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, objectively, transparently, and without unreasonable delay.

The journal recognizes the right of authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other stakeholders to raise legitimate concerns regarding editorial decisions, journal procedures, publication ethics, published content, or the conduct of individuals involved in the publication process.

FSRMA refers to relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when addressing complaints and appeals involving publication ethics or editorial integrity.

Scope of Complaints

Complaints may relate to, but are not limited to:

Editorial procedures.
Peer-review processes.
Delays in manuscript handling.
Conduct of editors, reviewers, editorial board members, or journal staff.
Publication ethics.
Conflicts of interest.
Authorship or contributorship disputes.
Plagiarism or research misconduct.
Corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.
Copyright or licensing concerns.
Data integrity or data availability.
Journal policies or their implementation.
Published articles.
Administrative or communication issues.

Complaints should be supported by sufficient information to allow the journal to understand and assess the concern.

Submitting a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the journal's official editorial contact.

The complaint should include, where applicable:

Name and contact details of the complainant.
Manuscript title or article title.
Manuscript ID or DOI, if available.
Clear description of the concern.
Relevant dates or correspondence.
Supporting documents or evidence.
The outcome or action being requested.

Anonymous complaints may be considered where they contain credible and verifiable evidence, particularly in cases involving research or publication misconduct.

Initial Assessment of Complaints

The editorial office will conduct an initial assessment to determine:

Whether the complaint falls within the journal's responsibility.
Whether sufficient information has been provided.
Whether there is an immediate research-integrity or ethical concern.
Who is best placed to review the matter.

The complainant may be asked to provide additional information where necessary.

Handling Complaints

Complaints will normally be handled by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriate senior editor.

If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it should be referred to another independent senior editor, designated editorial board member, or appropriate representative of the publisher who was not involved in the matter.

If the complaint concerns the publisher, the case should be handled by an appropriate independent person or body where reasonably possible.

Individuals who are the subject of a complaint should not make the final determination on that complaint.

Fairness and Confidentiality

FSRMA will aim to handle complaints:

Fairly and impartially.
Confidentially where appropriate.
On the basis of available evidence.
Without retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith.
With appropriate opportunity for affected parties to respond.

Confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is necessary for an investigation, legal requirement, institutional referral, or protection of the scholarly record.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that the decision resulted from:

A significant factual misunderstanding.
A material procedural error.
A substantial misinterpretation of the manuscript.
An important issue that was not adequately considered during peer review or editorial assessment.

An appeal is not simply an opportunity to request a different decision because the author disagrees with reviewer comments.

The appeal should present specific and evidence-based reasons why reconsideration is justified.

Submission of an Appeal

An editorial appeal should include:

Manuscript title.
Manuscript ID.
Original editorial decision.
Clear grounds for the appeal.
Specific points considered to have been misunderstood or overlooked.
Supporting evidence where relevant.
A reasoned response to the relevant reviewer or editor comments.

Authors should avoid submitting a substantially revised manuscript as a substitute for an appeal unless the journal specifically requests one.

Review of Appeals

Appeals should, where reasonably possible, be reviewed by an editor who was not primarily responsible for the original decision.

The reviewing editor may:

Examine the original manuscript.
Review the peer-review reports.
Review the author's appeal.
Consult another independent editor.
Obtain additional expert review where necessary.

The purpose of the appeal process is to determine whether the original decision was reached fairly and on appropriate scholarly and procedural grounds.

Possible Appeal Outcomes

Following review, the journal may:

Uphold the original decision.
Reconsider the manuscript.
Request additional peer review.
Invite revision and resubmission.
Modify the editorial decision where justified.

An appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.

Complaints Concerning Reviewers

If a complaint concerns reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, inappropriate language, suspected misuse of manuscript content, or another ethical issue, the journal will assess the matter confidentially.

Where appropriate, the journal may:

Seek an explanation from the reviewer.
Disregard a review.
Obtain an additional independent review.
Remove the reviewer from the journal's reviewer database.
Take further action in accordance with publication-ethics guidance.

Complaints Concerning Editors

Complaints concerning an editor should be handled by another editor or appropriate independent person who has no direct involvement in the matter.

Potential concerns may include:

Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Unfair or discriminatory handling.
Breaches of confidentiality.
Improper interference with peer review.
Unreasonable conduct.
Failure to follow journal procedures.

Where a legitimate concern is established, appropriate corrective action will be taken.

Research Misconduct Complaints

Complaints involving suspected:

Plagiarism.
Data fabrication.
Data falsification.
Image manipulation.
Citation manipulation.
Peer-review manipulation.
Duplicate publication.
Undisclosed competing interests.
Serious authorship misconduct.
Other research-integrity concerns.

will be handled under the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy.

The journal may request evidence from authors, reviewers, institutions, ethics committees, funding organizations, or other relevant parties.

Where appropriate, FSRMA may refer the matter to an author's institution or another competent authority for formal investigation.

Complaints About Published Articles

Concerns about published articles may result in:

No further action where the concern is unsupported.
Clarification by the authors.
Publication of a correction.
Publication of an expression of concern.
Retraction of the article.
Referral to an appropriate institution or authority.

Any action taken will be proportionate to the evidence and the seriousness of the issue.

Complaints About Journal Policies or Procedures

Stakeholders may raise concerns regarding the clarity, fairness, consistency, or implementation of journal policies.

FSRMA will review such concerns and, where appropriate, may clarify or revise its procedures.

Changes to policy will not normally be applied retrospectively unless necessary to protect research integrity or comply with legal or ethical obligations.

External Referral

If a complaint cannot be resolved internally, the journal may seek advice from an appropriate independent expert, institution, ethics body, or relevant publication-ethics resource.

Where applicable, FSRMA may refer to relevant COPE guidance for handling complex publication-ethics cases.

The journal will not represent COPE as an investigative or appeals authority unless such a role actually applies.

Timeliness

FSRMA aims to acknowledge complaints and appeals within a reasonable period and to resolve them as efficiently as the complexity of the case allows.

Some cases, particularly those involving institutional investigations, legal issues, research misconduct, or multiple parties, may require additional time.

Where a matter remains under review for an extended period, the journal should provide appropriate updates where practicable.

No Retaliation

Individuals who submit complaints, concerns, or appeals in good faith should not be disadvantaged solely for raising those concerns.

Knowingly false, malicious, abusive, or deliberately misleading complaints may be handled separately and may not receive further consideration.

Record Keeping

The journal may maintain appropriate records of complaints, appeals, investigations, decisions, and related correspondence for administrative, ethical, and quality-assurance purposes.

Such records will be handled in accordance with applicable confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

Final Decision

Once a complaint or appeal has been appropriately reviewed, the journal will communicate the outcome and, where appropriate, the reasons for the decision.

Where an internal appeal has been fully considered, further repetitive appeals based on the same evidence may not be reconsidered unless significant new information becomes available.

Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This policy should be read together with FSRMA's:

Peer Review Policy.
Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy.
Conflict of Interest Policy.
Plagiarism and Text Similarity Policy.
Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.
Authorship and Contributorship Policy.
Data Sharing Policy.
Copyright and Licensing Policy.

FSRMA is committed to addressing legitimate complaints and appeals in a manner that protects fairness, editorial independence, research integrity, and the reliability of the scholarly record.