Appealing the Editorial Decision
Submissions may be rejected without external review with a very general statement of the rejection decision. Generally, these decisions are not qualified for a formal appeal. However, authors who believe that their submission was rejected due to a misunderstanding or the decision was not in accordance with journal policy and procedures, may appeal the decision by sending the editor a comprehensive detailed response to the issues raised in the rejection letter (and not to justify the interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the journal).
The editor-in-chief (EiC) and editors will consider the appeal without giving any guarantee to accept the manuscript and thereafter if the Editor’s decision following the editorial criteria is rejection of the article, it will be deemed final.
Appealing Corrective Action taken Post Publication
In case a published article is the subject of a complaint, the editor will decide on the retraction of the published article, other corrective actions, or notices on the published article. The decision will be in line with the guideline published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including COPE’s retraction guidelines and in consultation with the publisher.
SCIENCELINE and its journals reserve the right to take corrective actions to maintain a transparent and accurate academic record.
General Concerns and Making A Complaint
• In the case that the initial response is felt to be insufficient, the complainant can request to escalate their complaint to a more senior member of the team.
• If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints may be escalated to the journal's EiC, for a final decision.
• If a complainant remains unhappy after what EiC considers a definitive reply, the complainant may complain to an external party with a relevant oversight.
Complaints sent to the publisher will usually be referred to the EiC of the journal of choice.
Handling Complaints and Appeals
The following principles and processes will be considered:
• Speed: All complaints will be formally acknowledged within two working days and processed as quickly as possible. We will then lead the investigation following COPE guidelines to make sure that the correct procedures have been followed or the author’s concerns have been addressed fairly and without prejudice by reviewing the paper’s peer review history and any correspondence between the author, editor, and reviewers. We may also contact the parties involved to obtain further information where necessary and in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) . Some complaints may be complex and take time to resolve fairly (for example, allowing a reasonable time for multiple parties to respond). So, we will try to resolve issues as swiftly as possible within two weeks. The final decision will be acknowledged to the author in writing.
• Fairness: We will try to treat all parties involved in a complaint fairly and avoid bias either in the process or outcome. We will avoid conflicts of interest.
• Confidentiality: We will only disclose information necessary to resolve a complaint in accordance with GDP regulations .
• Clarity: We will seek to be clear in all our communication, and consider the needs of those we are communicating with. In the interest of allowing due process to take place, and investigations to proceed without prejudice, we respectfully request that anyone raising a concern or complaint allow the process to conclude before publicly commenting on the case. If the author wishes to pursue their complaint further, they may contact COPE directly. Information can be found on the COPE website: Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics .