Editorial Decision Appeals and Complaints

Purpose and Scope

The SDEWES Journals Editorial Decision Appeals and Complaints Policy sets out the principles and procedures for handling appeals against editorial decisions and complaints concerning editorial processes, peer review, editorial conduct, policy application, communication, delay, publication handling or other activities of journals published by SDEWES Centre.

This policy supports fairness, transparency, accountability, respectful communication and editorial independence.

It applies to submitted, accepted and published manuscripts, including regular articles, review articles, special issue papers, article collections, conference-linked submissions and supplementary materials.

It applies to authors, reviewers, Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Guest Editors, Editorial Board members, readers, institutions, funders, SDEWES Centre staff or representatives and other persons or organisations raising or involved in an appeal or complaint.

In this policy:

  • an appeal handler means the Editor-in-Chief or another person authorised to assess an appeal, provided that the person has no relevant competing interest and did not participate in the contested decision where independent handling is required; 
  • a complaint handler means the Editor-in-Chief, another independent editor or another person designated by SDEWES Centre to assess a complaint, provided that the person is not directly involved in the matter and has no relevant competing interest. 

Each journal must provide an identifiable contact route for appeals and complaints. Where the concern involves that contact person or the Editor-in-Chief, the matter may be submitted directly to SDEWES Centre.

Related guidance, statement templates, declaration forms and checklists relevant to this policy are listed in Appendix A: Related COPE and International Guidance and Appendix B: Practical Forms, Statements and Checklists.

Definitions and General Principles

An appeal is a request by authors for reconsideration of an editorial decision concerning a submitted manuscript.

A complaint is a concern about the journal’s editorial process, peer-review handling, editorial conduct, communication, delay, policy application, publication handling or another aspect of the journal’s operation.

An allegation of research or publication misconduct may be received through the complaint process, but the substantive concern must be assessed under Publishing Ethics or another applicable specialised SDEWES Journals Policy. The complaint process governs receipt, routing, communication and procedural fairness; it does not replace the specialised assessment.

A disagreement with an editorial decision is not automatically a complaint. Similarly, a complaint about process does not automatically require reconsideration of the editorial decision. Where a submission contains both an appeal and a complaint, the matters may be separated and handled by different persons where necessary.

Challenges to corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, withdrawals, retraction with replacement, retraction with removal or other post-publication actions are handled as complaints or requests for procedural review under this policy, while the substantive publication-record decision is assessed under Corrections, Retractions and Withdrawals.

Appeals and complaints must be assessed fairly, consistently, confidentially and as promptly as reasonably possible. Persons raising concerns in good faith must not be disadvantaged merely because they submitted an appeal or complaint.

Appeals and complaints should be specific, evidence-based and respectfully presented. The tone or identity of a submission must not replace the assessment of whether it raises a credible substantive concern.

Editorial decisions must remain independent from Article Processing Charges, conference participation, SDEWES membership, institutional relationships, sponsorship, advertising or other non-editorial considerations in accordance with Editorial Independence.

Submission of an appeal or complaint does not guarantee reconsideration, reversal of a decision, acceptance of a manuscript or the outcome requested by the submitting party.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they provide a specific and substantiated reason to believe that the decision was materially affected by:

  • a significant factual or technical error; 
  • a clear misunderstanding of the manuscript; 
  • relevant evidence in the manuscript being overlooked; 
  • a material failure to follow the journal’s stated editorial or peer-review procedure; 
  • an actual, potential or perceived competing interest involving an editor, reviewer or Guest Editor; 
  • bias, inappropriate conduct or lack of procedural fairness; or 
  • a significant error in the interpretation or application of journal policy. 

Appeals are normally considered following external peer review. An appeal against rejection without external peer review may nevertheless be considered where there is credible evidence of a procedural error, competing interest, material policy error or significant misunderstanding of the manuscript’s scope or content.

An appeal will not normally be considered where it is based only on disagreement with editorial judgement concerning novelty, priority, significance, interest or suitability for the journal, or disagreement with reviewer opinions without evidence of factual error, bias or procedural irregularity.

An appeal must not be used merely to submit a substantially rewritten manuscript after rejection. A manuscript that has been substantially redeveloped may instead be considered as a new submission, where permitted by the journal.

One substantive appeal will normally be considered for each manuscript decision, subject to the limited further-review circumstances described in Section 7.

Where the appeal alleges compromised peer review, inappropriate reviewer conduct, a competing interest or another ethics concern, the matter must also be assessed under Peer Review Policy, Competing Interests and Funding Disclosure, Editorial Independence or Publishing Ethics, as applicable.

Submitting an Appeal

An appeal should normally be submitted in writing within 30 days of the editorial decision, unless the relevant journal specifies another timeframe. A late appeal may be considered where the authors provide a reasonable explanation, and the delay does not prevent fair assessment.

The corresponding author should normally coordinate and submit the appeal after consulting the other authors. Where the corresponding author is unavailable, directly involved in the concern or unable to act independently, another author may submit the appeal and explain the circumstances.

All authors should normally be informed of the appeal. Where full author agreement cannot be confirmed, the appeal should explain why. The journal may request additional confirmation where necessary.

The appeal should include:

  • journal name, manuscript title and manuscript ID; 
  • editorial decision being appealed and its date; 
  • name and contact details of the submitting author; 
  • clear and specific grounds for appeal; 
  • a point-by-point response to the editor or reviewer comments relevant to those grounds; 
  • supporting evidence for any alleged factual, technical or procedural error, competing interest, bias or misunderstanding; 
  • confirmation that the authors have been informed and, where applicable, agree to the appeal; and 
  • confirmation that the manuscript is not under consideration by another journal. 

Authors who submit the manuscript elsewhere while an appeal is pending must inform the journal promptly. The journal may then close the appeal.

Appeals should be submitted through the contact route identified on the relevant journal website.

Appeal Eligibility and Initial Assessment

The journal must acknowledge receipt of the appeal and assess whether:

  • the appeal concerns a decision eligible for review; 
  • it was submitted within the applicable timeframe or a justified exception applies; 
  • the grounds are specific and supported by relevant information; 
  • the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere; 
  • a competing interest or independence issue exists; 
  • additional information is required; and 
  • the submission contains a separate complaint or ethics concern requiring another policy route. 

An appeal may be declined without further scientific review where it is clearly outside the scope of this policy, merely repeats disagreement with editorial judgement, lacks specific grounds after clarification has been requested, or concerns a manuscript already submitted elsewhere.

Abusive or inappropriate language should be addressed separately from the substance of the appeal. A credible factual, procedural or integrity concern must not be disregarded solely because it was communicated inappropriately.

Where an appeal also contains an allegation of misconduct, privacy breach, authorship problem, data concern, copyright issue, competing interest or generative AI concern, that allegation must be recorded and routed under the relevant specialised policy.

Independent Appeal Handling and Reconsideration

An appeal must be handled by a person able to assess it independently and without a relevant competing interest.

Where the Editor-in-Chief did not participate in the original decision and has no relevant competing interest, the Editor-in-Chief may assess the appeal.

Where the Editor-in-Chief made or materially influenced the original decision, is named in the appeal, has a competing interest or cannot act independently, SDEWES Centre or the journal must appoint an appropriate independent appeal handler.

The original editor and reviewers may be asked to provide factual clarification or relevant records, but they must not control the appeal outcome where their conduct, judgement or independence is under review.

The appeal handler may:

  • review the manuscript, decision letter, reviewer reports and relevant correspondence; 
  • seek clarification from the original editor or reviewers; 
  • obtain an additional independent expert opinion; 
  • arrange new independent peer review; 
  • return the manuscript for reconsideration by another editor; or 
  • route a separate ethics or conduct concern under another policy. 

Reconsideration by the same editor may be appropriate for a clear administrative or factual error where no question of independence arises. Where the appeal concerns bias, competing interests, inappropriate conduct or the substantive fairness of the original handling, reconsideration should be undertaken by a different person.

The appeal handler must make an independent assessment and must not treat the appeal merely as an additional vote on the original decision.

Appeal Outcomes and Finality

Possible outcomes include:

  • the original decision is upheld; 
  • an administrative, factual or communication error is corrected; 
  • the manuscript is reconsidered by the same or a different editor; 
  • additional independent peer review is arranged; 
  • the authors are invited to revise the manuscript; 
  • the manuscript may be considered as a new submission; 
  • a separate ethics, integrity or conduct assessment is initiated; or 
  • no further action is taken. 

Reconsideration or additional review does not guarantee acceptance.

The corresponding or submitting author must receive a written outcome explaining:

  • the issue considered; 
  • the process followed; 
  • the outcome reached; 
  • the principal reason for the outcome; and 
  • any further action. 

The outcome of the substantive appeal is normally final for that manuscript decision. This does not prevent a complaint alleging that the appeal itself was handled contrary to this policy, but such a complaint is not a second appeal on the scientific merits.

A further merits review will normally occur only where material new evidence is presented or a material procedural defect in the appeal process is established.

Complaints: Scope and Submission

Complaints may concern:

  • failure to follow stated editorial or peer-review procedures; 
  • unreasonable delay or inadequate communication; 
  • inappropriate or unprofessional communication; 
  • alleged bias, discrimination, harassment, intimidation or retaliation; 
  • reviewer, editor, Guest Editor, Editorial Board or SDEWES Centre conduct; 
  • undisclosed competing interests; 
  • breach of confidentiality or privacy; 
  • handling of a special issue, collection or conference-linked submission; 
  • failure to apply a SDEWES Journals Policy; 
  • publisher or production procedures; or 
  • handling of a correction, expression of concern, retraction, withdrawal, retraction with replacement, retraction with removal or another post-publication action. 

Complaints may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, editors, research participants, institutions, funders, repositories, indexing services or other persons or organisations with a legitimate concern.

A complaint should normally be submitted in writing and include:

  • complainant name and contact details, unless anonymous; 
  • complainant role, where relevant; 
  • journal, manuscript, article or DOI details; 
  • a clear description of the concern; 
  • relevant dates and correspondence; 
  • supporting evidence or documentation; and 
  • any requested outcome. 

Anonymous and pseudonymous complaints must be assessed according to their specificity, credibility and supporting information. Anonymity alone is not a reason to dismiss a concern, and the journal should not attempt to identify an anonymous complainant merely because the complaint was submitted anonymously.

A request to keep the complainant’s identity confidential should be respected where reasonably possible. Absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is required for fair assessment, legal compliance or protection of another person’s rights. The complainant should be informed before disclosure, where reasonably possible.

Complaints should be raised as soon as reasonably possible. Older complaints may still be assessed where they involve serious ethics, integrity, legal, privacy or scholarly-record concerns.

Complaint Triage, Policy Routing and Independent Handling

The complaint handler must first determine:

  • whether the concern is sufficiently clear to assess; 
  • whether additional information is required; 
  • whether urgent legal, privacy, safety or scholarly-record action may be necessary; 
  • whether the concern is principally administrative, procedural, behavioural, ethical or post-publication; 
  • which SDEWES Journals Policy governs the substantive matter; and 
  • whether independent handling is required. 

Complaints concerning ordinary editorial administration or communication may be resolved directly by the journal or SDEWES Centre.

Complaints involving a substantive ethics, integrity or post-publication concern must be routed as follows:

This policy continues to govern complaint intake, independent handling, communication and closure, while the applicable specialised policy governs the substantive assessment and action.

Where a complaint concerns an Associate Editor, Guest Editor, Editorial Board member or reviewer, the Editor-in-Chief or another independent person may handle it.

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief or the Editor-in-Chief participated materially in the matter, SDEWES Centre must designate an independent complaint handler.

Where a complaint concerns SDEWES Centre staff or publisher conduct, the matter must be assigned to a person who was not involved in the concern and who can assess it independently. External advice may be sought where appropriate.

The complaint handler may request proportionate information from complainants, authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, repositories, data owners or other relevant parties. Information requested and shared must be limited to what is reasonably necessary.

Where an institution or another competent body is contacted, communication must be factual, confidential and limited to the matter requiring clarification. 

Complaint Outcomes, Escalation and Closure

Possible outcomes include:

  • explanation of the journal’s process or decision; 
  • correction of an administrative, factual or communication error; 
  • apology or clarification where appropriate; 
  • additional editorial or peer-review assessment; 
  • reassignment to an independent editor; 
  • update to journal procedures, guidance or training; 
  • referral under another SDEWES Journals Policy; 
  • correction, expression of concern, retraction, withdrawal or another publication-record action under Corrections, Retractions and Withdrawals; 
  • referral to an institution, funder, data owner, repository, legal adviser or other responsible body; or 
  • no further action where the complaint is unsupported, resolved or outside the journal’s responsibility. 

The complainant must receive a written response identifying the issue considered, the process followed, the outcome and the principal reason for the outcome, subject to confidentiality and privacy restrictions.

The journal may be unable to provide confidential reviewer information, personnel information, institutional findings or other protected material. The response should nevertheless provide as much explanation as can reasonably and lawfully be given.

Where a complainant believes that the complaint process was not followed, they may request procedural review by SDEWES Centre or another independent person or structure designated for that purpose. Where the complaint concerns SDEWES Centre or its staff, the procedural review must be assigned independently of the persons involved.

A procedural review examines whether the complaint was received, routed and assessed fairly and consistently. It does not allow SDEWES Centre to override independent editorial judgement concerning the scientific merit, novelty, priority or journal suitability of a manuscript.

Where the matter cannot be resolved internally or requires an institutional, legal or regulatory determination, it may be referred to an appropriate external body.

The complaint should be closed when the available information has been reasonably assessed, the applicable action has been completed or routed, and the complainant has been informed of the outcome.

Confidentiality, Anonymity and Records

Appeals and complaints must be handled with appropriate confidentiality, fairness and data minimisation.

Information should be shared only with persons who need it to assess, respond to or resolve the matter. A complete complaint or allegation should not automatically be circulated verbatim where a factual summary or limited extract is sufficient.

Persons whose conduct is questioned should normally be given an appropriate opportunity to respond, subject to confidentiality, legal, privacy and safety considerations.

Reviewer identities must remain confidential in accordance with the journal’s peer-review model and Peer Review Policy.

Personal data and confidential information must be handled under Privacy.

Appeal and complaint records, including submissions, correspondence, evidence, assessments, decisions and outcome letters, must be retained in an appropriate internal record in accordance with journal procedures, legal requirements and privacy obligations.

A person must not be subjected to retaliation by the journal merely for raising a concern in good faith. Retaliation, intimidation, harassment or other inappropriate conduct connected with an appeal or complaint may also be assessed under Publishing Ethics.

Repeated, Abusive or Multi-Issue Communications

Where a complainant raises multiple issues, the complaint handler should:

  • identify and separate the distinct allegations; 
  • determine which issues fall within the journal’s responsibility; 
  • consolidate related correspondence into one case record; 
  • identify the applicable policy route for each actionable issue; 
  • establish a single contact person where appropriate; and 
  • communicate the scope and sequence of the assessment clearly. 

The journal may set reasonable limits on the frequency, length or form of correspondence where communications are repetitive, abusive, threatening, discriminatory, defamatory, harassing or unrelated to an actionable concern.

Inappropriate communication does not remove the obligation to assess a credible substantive allegation. The journal may separate the concern from the manner in which it was communicated, address the concern and limit further inappropriate correspondence.

Correspondence may be closed where the issues have been adequately assessed, a reasoned response has been provided, and no material new information is submitted.

A closed matter may be reopened where significant new and relevant evidence becomes available.

Timeliness and Communication

Appeals and complaints should be acknowledged promptly.

The journal should conduct an initial eligibility or triage assessment as soon as reasonably possible and identify whether additional information, independent handling, urgent action or policy routing is required.

The time required for a final outcome will depend on the complexity of the matter, the availability of evidence, the need for independent review and any institutional, legal or external clarification.

Where handling is substantially delayed, the submitting party should receive an appropriate status update. Status updates must not disclose confidential information or prejudge the outcome.

Any urgent action necessary to protect confidentiality, privacy, safety, legal obligations or the scholarly record may be taken before the final appeal or complaint outcome, provided that the action is documented and proportionate.

Policy Review and Updates

SDEWES Centre may review and update this policy periodically to reflect developments in publication ethics, peer review, editorial governance, complaints handling, appeals processes, research integrity, privacy, legal requirements and international standards.

Updated policies apply from the date of publication on the SDEWES Journals Policies website unless otherwise stated.

Appendix A. Related COPE and International Guidance

COPE Core Practice. Complaints and appeals

Establishes the expectation that journals maintain a clearly described process for complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board or publisher and provide a mechanism for editorial-decision appeals.

COPE Guidance. Develop guidelines for promptly responding to suspected ethical breaches by authors, reviewers, and editors

Provides operational guidance on designated contact points, author appeals, editor and reviewer misconduct, institutional contact, independent advice and prompt handling.

COPE DOAJ OASPA WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Requires journal websites to explain clearly how complaints and appeals are handled and how allegations of research misconduct are managed.

COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics - Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised directly

Provides step-by-step guidance for receiving, clarifying and assessing concerns raised directly with a journal or publisher.

COPE Council. COPE Discussion Document. Responding to anonymous whistleblowers

Provides guidance on assessing anonymous concerns according to their substance and evidence rather than dismissing them because the complainant is unidentified.

COPE Council. COPE Discussion Document: Addressing ethics complaints from complainants who submit multiple issues

Provides guidance on organising, prioritising and responding proportionately where a complainant submits multiple, repeated or complex concerns.

COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity and publication misconduct cases.

Relevant where a complaint raises possible research or publication misconduct requiring communication between the journal, publisher and an institution or research organisation.

Appendix B. Practical Forms, Statements and Checklists

The documents below provide practical support for submitting, triaging, independently assessing, documenting and communicating editorial-decision appeals and complaints.

Editorial Decision Appeal Request Form

Author request form – Used to submit an appeal against an editorial decision, including manuscript details, author consultation, grounds for appeal, relevant point-by-point responses and supporting evidence. The corresponding author normally coordinates the appeal, but another author may submit it where justified.

Editorial Decision Appeal Assessment Checklist for Editors

Internal editor checklist – Used by the appeal handler to assess eligibility, timing, evidence, competing interests, independent handling, possible reconsideration and the distinction between a merits appeal, a procedural complaint and a separate ethics concern.

Complaint Submission Form

Author, reviewer, reader or third-party form – Used to submit a complaint about editorial process, peer-review handling, editorial or publisher conduct, policy application, communication, delay, confidentiality, competing interests, publication ethics, research integrity, post-publication action or another journal-related concern.

Complaint Handling and Response Checklist for Editors

Internal editor and publisher checklist – Used by the complaint handler to triage, route, independently assess, document and respond to complaints, including anonymous, urgent, repeated or multi-issue complaints and matters requiring institutional, legal or specialised-policy handling.

Appeal or Complaint Outcome Letter Template

Editorial response template – Used to communicate the issue considered, process followed, independent handler where applicable, outcome reached, principal reasons, further action and whether the matter is closed or eligible for procedural escalation.