Appeals and Complaints Policy

Emergent Life Sciences Research (ELSR) is committed to fair, transparent, respectful, and accountable editorial and publication processes.

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other individuals may raise concerns regarding editorial decisions, journal procedures, publication practices, or the conduct of individuals acting on behalf of the journal.

ELSR distinguishes between an appeal and a complaint.

An appeal is a formal request for reconsideration of a specific editorial or publication decision.

A complaint concerns the journal's processes, procedures, conduct, communication, service, or implementation of journal policies.

ELSR seeks to consider appeals and complaints objectively, confidentially, and within a reasonable period.

 

1. Purpose of This Policy

The purpose of this policy is to provide a clear process for raising and assessing appeals and complaints relating to ELSR.

The policy is intended to:

• Support procedural fairness.
• Provide an appropriate route for challenging editorial decisions.
• Allow concerns regarding journal processes or conduct to be reported.
• Protect editorial independence.
• Identify procedural or policy failures.
• Support appropriate corrective action.
• Maintain confidence in the journal's editorial and publication processes.

Submission of an appeal or complaint should be made in good faith and should include sufficient information to allow the matter to be assessed.

 

2. Difference Between an Appeal and a Complaint

An appeal and a complaint are not the same.

An appeal concerns a specific editorial or publication decision.

Examples may include:

• Rejection of a manuscript.
• A decision relating to plagiarism or text similarity.
• An authorship-related editorial decision.
• A decision concerning AI-related publication concerns.
• A post-publication editorial decision.
• A decision concerning correction or retraction.

A complaint concerns a process, conduct, or service issue.

Examples may include:

• Unreasonable editorial delay.
• Inappropriate communication.
• Alleged breach of confidentiality.
• Potential conflict of interest.
• Failure to follow a stated journal procedure.
• Reviewer or Editor conduct.
• Administrative handling of a manuscript.
• Concerns regarding journal policy implementation.

The Editorial Office may classify a submission as an appeal or complaint according to the substance of the matter rather than the terminology used by the person submitting it.

 

3. Who May Submit an Appeal or Complaint

Appeals or complaints may be submitted by:

• Authors.
• Corresponding authors.
• Reviewers.
• Readers.
• Editorial Board members.
• Researchers.
• Institutions.
• Other individuals or organizations with a legitimate concern relating to ELSR.

Where a matter concerns a submitted manuscript, communication should normally be made by the corresponding author on behalf of the authors.

Co-authors may contact the Editorial Office directly where the concern relates to authorship, consent, integrity, or another matter that cannot reasonably be communicated through the corresponding author.

 

4. General Principles

ELSR seeks to handle appeals and complaints according to the following principles:

• Fairness.
• Objectivity.
• Confidentiality.
• Appropriate independence.
• Respectful communication.
• Consideration of relevant evidence.
• Protection of editorial integrity.
• Proportionate action.

Individuals involved in assessing an appeal or complaint should disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where a significant conflict exists, the matter should be assigned to another appropriate individual where reasonably possible.

 

5. Editorial Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant scientific, factual, ethical, or procedural issue materially affected the decision.

An appeal should identify a substantive reason for reconsideration.

Possible grounds for appeal may include:

• A significant factual misunderstanding.
• A material scientific error in the assessment.
• A major methodological issue that was incorrectly interpreted.
• Evidence that relevant information was overlooked.
• A significant procedural irregularity.
• A relevant conflict of interest that may have affected the decision.
• Evidence that the journal's stated policy was not appropriately applied.
• Other substantial circumstances that may have materially affected the editorial outcome.

An appeal should focus on the scientific, factual, or procedural basis of the disputed decision.

 

6. Matters That Do Not Normally Constitute Grounds for Appeal

The following do not normally constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal by themselves:

• General disagreement with an editorial decision.
• Disappointment with manuscript rejection.
• A request for another opportunity to revise without substantive justification.
• The belief that the manuscript is important without supporting scientific argument.
• Comparison with another article published by ELSR.
• Comparison with a decision made by another journal.
• Disagreement with a reviewer expressed only as a difference of opinion.
• Statements regarding the authors' academic position, reputation, publication record, or institutional status.
• Requests based on urgency related to promotion, graduation, funding, employment, or other personal deadlines.

An appeal may still be considered when such circumstances are accompanied by a substantive scientific, factual, ethical, or procedural concern.

 

7. Submission of an Appeal

An appeal should be submitted in writing to the ELSR Editorial Office.

The appeal should normally include:

• Manuscript title.
• Manuscript identification number, where applicable.
• Name of the corresponding author.
• The editorial decision is being appealed.
• A clear explanation of the grounds for appeal.
• Identification of the specific scientific, factual, ethical, or procedural issue.
• Relevant supporting information.
• A concise explanation of the requested reconsideration.

The appeal should be written professionally and should focus on the matter under dispute.

Authors should not submit multiple separate appeals concerning the same decision while an appeal is under consideration.

 

8. Timing of Appeals

Authors are encouraged to submit an appeal promptly after receiving the relevant editorial decision.

Appeals should normally be submitted within 30 calendar days of the editorial decision.

ELSR may consider a later appeal when there is a reasonable explanation for the delay or when significant new information has become available.

The journal may decline to reopen a substantially old editorial matter when meaningful reassessment is no longer reasonably possible.

Post-publication concerns relating to the integrity of the scientific record may be considered regardless of this normal appeal period.

 

9. Initial Assessment of an Appeal

The Editorial Office may conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the submission:

• Relates to an identifiable editorial decision.
• Provides a substantive basis for appeal.
• Contains sufficient information for assessment.
• Falls within the journal's editorial responsibility.
• Repeats a matter that has already been fully considered.

The Editorial Office may request clarification or additional information.

An appeal that does not identify a substantive scientific, factual, ethical, or procedural issue may be declined without full reconsideration of the manuscript.

 

10. Assessment of an Appeal

Where an appeal is accepted for assessment, the journal may review:

• The original manuscript.
• Reviewer reports.
• Editorial comments.
• Author responses.
• Revised manuscript versions.
• Relevant journal policies.
• Supporting information submitted with the appeal.
• Other relevant editorial records.

The appeal may be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriate Editor.

Where possible and appropriate, an individual who was not the sole decision-maker in the original disputed decision may participate in the appeal assessment.

 

11. Independent Scientific Assessment

ELSR may seek additional scientific assessment when an appeal raises a substantive scientific or methodological issue.

The journal may:

• Consult another Editor.
• Seek advice from an Editorial Board member.
• Invite an additional independent reviewer.
• Request specialist statistical or methodological assessment.
• Seek other appropriate scientific expertise.

Additional review is not automatically required for every appeal.

The decision to seek further assessment will depend on the nature of the disputed issue.

 

12. Reviewer Disagreement and Appeals

Disagreement with a reviewer does not automatically establish that an editorial decision was incorrect.

Scientific peer review may involve legitimate differences in interpretation or judgment.

Authors appealing a decision based on reviewer comments should clearly explain:

• The specific reviewer statement is being challenged.
• The scientific or factual basis of disagreement.
• Relevant evidence or literature.
• Why the issue may have materially affected the editorial decision.

General statements that a reviewer was “wrong,” “unfair,” or “did not understand the manuscript” are normally insufficient without specific supporting explanation.

 

13. Appeal Outcomes

Following assessment, an appeal may result in:

• Confirmation of the original decision.
• Reconsideration of the manuscript.
• Further editorial assessment.
• Additional peer review.
• Invitation to submit a revised manuscript.
• Modification of an editorial decision.
• Other appropriate editorial action.

Acceptance of an appeal for assessment does not imply that the original decision will be changed.

A successful appeal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance.

Where a manuscript is reconsidered, it remains subject to the journal's normal scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements.

 

14. Finality of Appeal Decisions

ELSR normally considers one formal appeal per editorial decision.

Once an appeal has been fully assessed and an appeal decision has been communicated, the journal may consider the matter closed.

Repeated submissions that do not provide significant new information may not be reconsidered.

A further assessment may be considered when substantial new evidence becomes available or when a serious publication-integrity concern is identified.

This limitation does not prevent individuals from reporting new ethical or research-integrity concerns.

 

15. Complaints

ELSR accepts complaints concerning journal procedures, communication, conduct, or implementation of journal policies.

A complaint may relate to:

• Editorial processes.
• Peer-review procedures.
• Editorial delays.
• Administrative communication.
• Confidentiality.
• Conflict-of-interest management.
• Reviewer conduct.
• Editor conduct.
• Editorial Office conduct.
• Application of journal policies.
• Publication procedures.
• Other matters within the journal's responsibility.

Complaints should clearly describe the concern and provide relevant information.

 

16. Submission of a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the ELSR Editorial Office.

A complaint should, where applicable, include:

• Name and contact information of the complainant.
• Manuscript or article identification.
• Description of the concern.
• Relevant dates.
• Individuals or journal processes involved.
• Relevant correspondence or supporting information.
• The outcome or action being requested, where appropriate.

Complaints should be specific and factual.

The journal may request additional information where the original complaint is insufficiently clear.

 

17. Complaints Concerning Editorial Delay

ELSR recognizes that timely editorial processing is important.

However, editorial and peer-review timelines may vary because of:

• Reviewer availability.
• Difficulty identifying appropriate specialist reviewers.
• Complex scientific assessment.
• Multiple rounds of revision.
• Ethical or research-integrity concerns.
• Author response times.
• Technical or administrative issues.
• Other circumstances affecting editorial evaluation.

Authors may contact the Editorial Office when they believe that a manuscript has experienced an unreasonable delay.

The Editorial Office should review the manuscript status and provide appropriate information where possible.

A delay does not, by itself, establish editorial misconduct.

 

18. Complaints Concerning Reviewers

Concerns regarding reviewer conduct may include:

• Unprofessional language.
• Personal criticism.
• Discriminatory comments.
• Inappropriate requests for citation.
• Potential conflicts of interest.
• Breach of confidentiality.
• Suspected misuse of unpublished manuscript information.
• Other conduct inconsistent with the ELSR Peer Review Policy.

Authors should identify the specific reviewer comment or conduct of concern.

Scientific disagreement with a reviewer should normally be addressed through the manuscript response or appeal process rather than as a conduct complaint.

ELSR may assess reviewer conduct independently of the final editorial decision.

 

19. Complaints Concerning Editors

A complaint concerning an Editor may relate to:

• Potential conflict of interest.
• Inappropriate communication.
• Alleged bias.
• Breach of confidentiality.
• Failure to follow an applicable journal procedure.
• Inappropriate use of unpublished information.
• Other serious professional-conduct concerns.

The complaint should provide specific information supporting the concern.

Disagreement with an editorial decision does not, by itself, establish editorial bias or misconduct.

Where appropriate, the matter should be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another individual who is not the subject of the complaint.

 

20. Complaints Concerning the Editor-in-Chief

Where a complaint directly concerns the conduct or conflict of interest of the Editor-in-Chief, the matter should not be assessed solely by the Editor-in-Chief.

The complaint may be referred to an appropriate senior Editorial Board member or another independent individual with suitable editorial responsibility.

The person assessing the complaint should not have a relevant conflict of interest.

The assessment should focus on the specific procedural, ethical, or professional concern raised.

 

21. Complaints Concerning the Editorial Office

Complaints regarding Editorial Office communication, administration, or manuscript handling should clearly identify the relevant issue.

The journal may review:

• Editorial correspondence.
• Manuscript records.
• Processing history.
• Applicable journal procedures.
• Other relevant information.

Where an administrative error is identified, ELSR should seek to correct the error where reasonably possible.

Administrative correction does not require alteration of an independent scientific decision unless the error materially affected that decision.

 

22. Confidentiality Complaints

ELSR takes concerns regarding manuscript and peer-review confidentiality seriously.

A confidentiality complaint may involve alleged unauthorized disclosure of:

• Manuscript content.
• Author information protected under the review model.
• Reviewer identity.
• Reviewer reports.
• Unpublished data.
• Confidential editorial information.

The journal may request relevant evidence or information.

Where a confidentiality concern is substantiated, ELSR may take appropriate editorial or administrative action.

Serious concerns may also be addressed under the ELSR Publication Ethics Policy or ELSR Peer Review Policy.

 

23. Conflict-of-Interest Complaints

Individuals may raise concerns regarding an undisclosed or inadequately managed conflict of interest involving:

• An author.
• Reviewer.
• Editor.
• Editorial Board member.
• Other participants in the publication process.

The complaint should identify the nature of the potential conflict and explain why it may be relevant to the editorial or publication process.

The existence of a professional relationship does not automatically establish an inappropriate conflict.

ELSR will assess whether the relationship or interest could reasonably have affected objectivity or created a relevant perception of bias.

 

24. Complaints Concerning Publication Ethics

Concerns involving potential:

• Plagiarism.
• Data fabrication.
• Data falsification.
• Image manipulation.
• Duplicate publication.
• Authorship misconduct.
• Citation manipulation.
• Peer-review manipulation.
• Undisclosed AI uses affecting research integrity.
• Other research or publication misconduct

should be assessed under the ELSR Publication Ethics Policy and the relevant specific journal policy.

Such concerns may be submitted through the Editorial Office.

A publication-ethics concern will not be treated merely as a service complaint when the integrity of a submitted or published work may be affected.

 

25. Complaints About Published Articles

Readers or other individuals may raise concerns regarding articles published in ELSR.

The complaint should identify:

• The article concerned.
• The specific issue.
• The relevant section, figure, table, data, or statement where applicable.
• Supporting information or evidence.

ELSR may assess the matter under the ELSR Corrections & Retractions Policy, Publication Ethics Policy, or another relevant policy.

Good-faith concerns regarding published research may be considered regardless of the publication date.

 

26. Anonymous Complaints

ELSR may consider anonymous complaints when they contain specific, credible, and assessable information.

Anonymous complaints should provide sufficient detail to allow the journal to understand and examine the concern.

The journal may be unable to assess allegations that are:

• Excessively vague.
• Unsupported.
• Impossible to verify.
• Outside the journal's responsibility.

Anonymous status does not automatically reduce the seriousness of a concern.

The available evidence and nature of the issue will determine the journal's response.

 

27. Good-Faith Complaints

Individuals are encouraged to raise genuine concerns in good faith.

A complaint should focus on the relevant scientific, ethical, procedural, or professional issue.

ELSR will not consider criticism of the journal or an editorial decision as misconduct merely because the criticism is unfavorable.

The journal may, however, limit or discontinue correspondence that is:

• Abusive.
• Threatening.
• Discriminatory.
• Clearly harassing.
• Repeatedly duplicative.
• Unrelated to an identifiable journal matter.

This does not prevent assessment of a legitimate concern contained within difficult or critical correspondence.

 

28. Confidentiality in Appeals and Complaints

ELSR will seek to handle appeals and complaints with appropriate confidentiality.

Information may be shared with individuals who reasonably need the information to assess the matter.

These may include:

• Editors.
• Editorial Board members.
• Reviewers or independent experts.
• Authors.
• Institutional representatives.
• Ethics or research-integrity bodies.
• Other appropriate parties.

Information should not be disclosed more widely than reasonably necessary.

Complete confidentiality cannot always be guaranteed when investigation or corrective action requires communication with relevant individuals or organizations.

 

29. Conflicts of Interest in Handling Appeals and Complaints

An individual should not control the assessment of an appeal or complaint when a relevant conflict of interest may affect their impartiality.

Potential conflicts should be disclosed.

Where reasonably possible, the matter should be reassigned to another appropriate individual.

If the complaint concerns a person who would normally handle the matter, an alternative assessor should be identified.

The objective is to support a fair and credible assessment process.

 

30. Opportunity to Respond

Where an appeal or complaint includes a significant concern regarding the conduct or actions of an identifiable individual, that individual may be given an opportunity to respond where appropriate.

The journal may provide sufficient information to allow a meaningful response while protecting confidential information where necessary.

The response will be considered together with other available information.

An allegation should not be presented as an established fact before appropriate assessment.

 

31. Evidence and Supporting Information

ELSR may request relevant information when assessing an appeal or complaint.

This may include:

• Editorial correspondence.
• Reviewer reports.
• Manuscript versions.
• Author responses.
• Research data.
• Publication records.
• Conflict-of-interest information.
• Institutional information.
• Other supporting documentation.

The journal will consider the reliability and relevance of the information provided.

A lack of documentary evidence does not automatically invalidate a concern, but the journal's ability to act may depend on the information reasonably available.

 

32. Complaints Outside the Journal's Authority

Some concerns may fall primarily within the responsibility of:

• Universities.
• Research institutions.
• Funding organizations.
• Employers.
• Ethics committees.
• Regulatory bodies.
• Courts or legal authorities.
• Other organizations.

ELSR may inform the complainant when a matter appears to fall outside the journal's editorial authority.

Where a concern also affects a submitted or published article, ELSR may take appropriate editorial action concerning the scholarly record.

The journal does not normally determine legal liability, employment disputes, or institutional disciplinary matters.

 

33. Complaint Outcomes

Following assessment, a complaint may result in:

• No further action.
• Clarification or explanation.
• Correction of an administrative error.
• Review of an editorial procedure.
• Reassignment of a manuscript.
• Replacement of a reviewer.
• Review of reviewer participation.
• Review of an Editor's involvement.
• Correction of journal information.
• Additional staff or editorial guidance.
• Referral to another ELSR policy process.
• Post-publication action.
• Other appropriate corrective action.

The outcome will depend on the nature and seriousness of the concern.

 

34. Communication of the Outcome

ELSR should communicate the outcome of an appeal or complaint to the person who submitted it where reasonably possible.

The communication may include:

• The decision.
• A concise explanation.
• Any relevant action taken.
• Information regarding further journal procedures, where applicable.

The journal may be unable to disclose confidential personnel, reviewer, institutional, or investigative information.

The need for confidentiality may limit the detail provided regarding some actions.

 

35. Response Time

ELSR will seek to acknowledge appeals and complaints within a reasonable period.

The time required for full assessment may depend on:

• Complexity of the issue.
• Availability of relevant records.
• Need for scientific assessment.
• Responses from involved individuals.
• Institutional enquiries.
• Ethical or legal considerations.

Where an assessment requires substantial time, the journal may provide an update when reasonably possible.

ELSR does not guarantee a fixed resolution period for all appeals or complaints.

 

36. No Retaliation for Good-Faith Concerns

ELSR will not intentionally disadvantage an author, reviewer, reader, or other individual solely because they submitted a legitimate appeal or complaint in good faith.

Future manuscripts should be evaluated according to the journal's normal editorial and scientific standards.

This principle does not prevent the journal from taking appropriate action where a person engages in:

• Research or publication misconduct.
• Abusive conduct.
• Harassment.
• Threats.
• Deliberate submission of false information.
• Manipulation of journal processes.

Good-faith criticism and deliberate misconduct are distinct matters.

 

37. Repeated or Abusive Communications

ELSR may limit further correspondence when an appeal or complaint has been fully assessed, and the same matter is repeatedly resubmitted without significant new information.

The journal may also take appropriate measures in response to communications that contain:

• Threats.
• Harassment.
• Discriminatory abuse.
• Persistent personal attacks.
• Other seriously inappropriate conduct.

Where a communication contains a legitimate scientific or ethical concern, ELSR should seek to separate the substantive concern from the inappropriate manner of communication where reasonably possible.

 

38. Records of Appeals and Complaints

ELSR may retain appropriate records relating to appeals and complaints.

Records may include:

• The original appeal or complaint.
• Relevant correspondence.
• Supporting information.
• Assessment notes.
• The outcome.
• Relevant editorial actions.

Such records should be handled with appropriate confidentiality and in accordance with applicable data-management requirements.

Records may be used to support internal review of journal procedures and policy implementation.

 

39. Relationship With Other ELSR Policies

Appeals and complaints may involve matters addressed by other ELSR policies.

Relevant policies may include:

• Editorial Policy.
• Peer Review Policy.
• Publication Ethics Policy.
• Authorship Policy.
• Plagiarism Policy.
• AI and Generative AI Policy.
• Copyright & Licensing Policy.
• Open Access Policy.
• Research Data Policy.
• Corrections & Retractions Policy.
• Article Processing Charges Policy.

Where appropriate, ELSR may assess a matter under more than one policy.

This Appeals & Complaints Policy provides the procedural route for raising concerns but does not replace the substantive requirements of other journal policies.

 

40. Appeals & Complaints Policy Oversight

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Office are responsible for overseeing the implementation of this Appeals & Complaints Policy.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest or is directly the subject of a complaint, an appropriate alternative individual should oversee the assessment.

ELSR may review appeal and complaint records to identify recurring procedural concerns and opportunities to improve journal practices.

The journal may update this policy when necessary to support fair, transparent, and accountable scholarly publishing.

All appeals and complaints will be considered according to the nature of the concern, the available information, and the journal's responsibility to maintain the integrity and fairness of its editorial and publication processes.