Appeals and Complaints
Last Updated: October 2026
This policy is part of ETFLIN's Editorial Policies.
Purpose and Scope
ETFLIN is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, independent, and accountable editorial process. Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, institutions, and other relevant parties may raise concerns about editorial decisions, the conduct of the publication process, or the handling of scholarly content.
This policy establishes the procedures for submitting and assessing appeals and complaints, including the requirements for supporting evidence, independent reconsideration, confidentiality, communication, and resolution.
An appeal and a complaint serve different purposes. An appeal seeks reconsideration of a specific editorial decision, while a complaint raises a concern about the fairness, conduct, integrity, or administration of an editorial or publishing process. A communication may involve both matters, in which case ETFLIN will determine the appropriate procedure for each component.
ETFLIN handles appeals and complaints in accordance with recognized publication ethics principles, including the COPE Core Practices, and the transparency and fairness principles described in the ICMJE Recommendations on Submission and Peer Review.
General Principles
All appeals and complaints will be assessed objectively, fairly, and without discrimination or retaliation against individuals who raise legitimate concerns in good faith.
Decisions must be based on the relevant evidence, applicable editorial policies, procedural fairness, and the circumstances of the case. The identity, institutional affiliation, seniority, nationality, or personal relationships of the parties must not improperly influence the assessment.
ETFLIN will seek to ensure that a person does not determine the outcome of a complaint or appeal concerning their own conduct or a decision in which they were directly involved when independent assessment is reasonably available.
All parties are expected to communicate professionally and provide accurate information. Deliberately false allegations, material misrepresentations, threats, harassment, and abusive conduct are not acceptable. However, criticism of an editorial decision or a good-faith complaint will not be dismissed merely because it is unfavorable to the journal or its personnel.
The existence of an appeal does not guarantee that a decision will be reversed. Likewise, the submission of a complaint does not automatically establish that misconduct or a procedural failure has occurred.
Submission and Initial Handling
Appeals and complaints must be submitted in writing through ETFLIN's official editorial communication channel at halo@etflin.com. The submission should identify whether it concerns an editorial decision, an editorial or publishing process, the conduct of an individual involved in publication, or another matter within the scope of this policy.
Where the issue concerns a particular manuscript, the submission should include its title, manuscript identification number where available, the relevant editorial decision or event, and the date on which it occurred.
The submitter should provide a clear explanation of the concern and any available supporting information. Relevant materials may include editorial correspondence, reviewer comments, dates of communication, records of the disputed procedure, or other evidence necessary to assess the matter.
ETFLIN will acknowledge receipt of an appeal or complaint within five working days. This acknowledgment confirms receipt and does not indicate that the request has been accepted on its merits or that a particular outcome will follow.
The Managing Editor or designated editorial representative will conduct an initial assessment to determine the appropriate handling route. If the matter concerns the conduct or decision of the person who would ordinarily handle it, the case must be assigned to an appropriate independent representative.
A communication that combines an appeal with an allegation of procedural misconduct may be assessed through separate but coordinated procedures. This allows the journal to evaluate the editorial decision and any alleged procedural failure without assuming that one necessarily establishes the other.
Appeals Against Editorial Decisions
Grounds for Appeal
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they have a substantive and identifiable reason to believe that the decision should be reconsidered.
Acceptable grounds may include:
A material factual error or misunderstanding concerning the content, methods, results, or conclusions of the manuscript.
Relevant evidence or information that was not adequately considered during the original assessment.
A demonstrable procedural irregularity that may have materially affected the fairness or reliability of the decision.
A relevant undisclosed competing interest, inappropriate influence, or other circumstance that may have compromised the independence of the editorial assessment.
A material misinterpretation of the reviewers' comments or the authors' response that affected the decision.
The grounds for appeal must be explained specifically. Authors should identify the disputed issue, explain why it matters to the original decision, and provide supporting evidence or a reasoned argument.
A difference of scientific opinion, dissatisfaction with a rejection, disagreement with a reviewer's recommendation, or a desire to obtain a more favorable assessment is not sufficient by itself to justify an appeal. Such matters may be considered when accompanied by substantive evidence of a factual error, material omission, or procedural problem.
Appeals must not be used to bypass the regular submission process, obtain an automatic additional review, or compel the journal to accept a manuscript that does not meet its editorial standards.
Submission Deadline and Requirements
An appeal should ordinarily be submitted within 30 calendar days of the date on which the editorial decision was communicated to the authors.
The appeal must identify the decision being challenged and provide a concise, evidence-based explanation of the grounds for reconsideration. Where the appeal concerns reviewer comments, the authors should address the relevant issues directly and explain why those comments or their interpretation materially affected the editorial outcome.
The journal may consider an appeal submitted after this period when exceptional circumstances justify the delay, such as the subsequent discovery of material evidence that could not reasonably have been provided earlier.
An appeal that does not identify a substantive ground for reconsideration may be declined without a full reassessment. Where additional information is needed to determine whether the appeal warrants consideration, ETFLIN may request clarification from the authors.
Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be reopened, that additional reviewers will be appointed, or that the manuscript will be accepted.
Assessment of an Appeal
The appeal will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or another appropriately designated representative, provided that the person has not been directly responsible for the disputed decision and has no relevant competing interest.
Where the original decision was made by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor, or where an independent assessment is otherwise necessary, ETFLIN may appoint another senior editor, an independent editorial board member, or an appropriate external assessor.
The person handling the appeal will consider the original decision, the available reviewer reports, the authors' response, the specific grounds for appeal, and any additional evidence relevant to the disputed issue.
The purpose of the appeal is to determine whether the original decision should stand, whether a material issue warrants further consideration, or whether the editorial process requires correction. It is not intended to reproduce the entire peer-review process automatically.
If the appeal identifies a credible concern that cannot be resolved from the existing records, the journal may seek additional expert advice, request clarification, or conduct a further independent assessment.
The original editor or reviewer may be asked to clarify the basis of their assessment where appropriate, but the appeal must not be handled in a manner that allows a person whose conduct is under challenge to determine the outcome of that challenge.
Possible Outcomes of an Appeal
Following assessment, ETFLIN may:
Uphold the original editorial decision.
Reopen the editorial assessment because material information was overlooked or misunderstood.
Request an additional independent review or another expert assessment.
Refer the matter for further procedural or ethical assessment when the appeal raises a concern beyond the merits of the manuscript.
Issue a revised editorial decision where reconsideration establishes that the original decision should be changed.
Where an appeal is accepted for reconsideration, this means only that the relevant issue will be reassessed. It does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
A revised decision must be based on the substantive merits of the manuscript, the available evidence, and the applicable editorial requirements. Any resulting revision, additional review, or acceptance remains subject to the ordinary editorial process.
ETFLIN will communicate the outcome of the appeal to the relevant author or corresponding author, explaining the principal basis for the determination to the extent permitted by confidentiality requirements.
Finality and Repeated Appeals
ETFLIN ordinarily permits one formal appeal against an editorial decision for a given manuscript. This is intended to provide a meaningful opportunity for reconsideration without creating an indefinite cycle of repeated assessments of the same issue.
A subsequent request may be considered where genuinely new material evidence emerges, a significant procedural irregularity is identified, or another exceptional circumstance provides a reasonable basis for further review.
A repeated appeal that merely restates arguments already considered, without identifying new evidence or a material unresolved procedural issue, may be declined.
Once the appeal has been considered and a final determination has been communicated, the decision will ordinarily be treated as final for that manuscript. This does not prevent the journal from separately investigating a credible research-integrity concern or correcting the published record when required.
Complaints About Editorial and Publishing Processes
Scope of Complaints
A complaint may be submitted by an author, reviewer, reader, editor, institution, or other party with a legitimate interest in the matter.
Complaints may concern the conduct or administration of editorial and publishing processes, including:
Unreasonable procedural delays or inadequate communication about material delays.
Failure to follow the journal's published editorial procedures.
Potentially inappropriate conduct by an editor, reviewer, editorial staff member, or other person involved in publication.
Suspected conflicts of interest or inappropriate interference in editorial decisions.
Breaches of confidentiality involving manuscripts, reviews, or editorial communications.
Inconsistent or unfair application of published editorial requirements.
Administrative or publishing practices that materially affect the fairness or transparency of the publication process.
A complaint should identify the specific event or practice at issue and explain why it raises a concern. The submitter should provide relevant dates, correspondence, records, or other available evidence.
A complaint does not need to establish the full facts before it can be considered. However, the journal must have sufficient information to identify the concern and determine what further clarification or investigation may be appropriate.
Complaints About Editors or Editorial Staff
When a complaint concerns an editor, Managing Editor, reviewer, editorial board member, or staff member, the individual concerned must not be solely responsible for deciding the outcome of the complaint.
The matter should be assigned to an independent senior representative, another editor without the relevant conflict, or an appropriate representative of the publisher. Where the complaint concerns the person who would ordinarily handle such matters, ETFLIN must establish an alternative route that does not depend on that person's participation in the decision.
The journal may request explanations from the person concerned and from other relevant parties. Such requests must be handled fairly and must not presume that the complaint is either correct or unfounded before the available information has been assessed.
The assessment may consider whether the relevant conduct was consistent with published policies, whether the procedure was followed, whether a conflict of interest was appropriately managed, and whether any corrective action is required.
The purpose of the investigation is to determine the facts, assess compliance with the applicable requirements, and identify an appropriate response. It is not intended to protect an individual from legitimate scrutiny or to presume misconduct merely because a complaint has been made.
Complaints About Peer Review
Complaints regarding peer review may concern the handling of reviewer invitations, procedural delays, possible bias, inappropriate reviewer conduct, confidentiality breaches, or other alleged departures from the published review process.
ETFLIN will assess whether the relevant procedures were followed and whether any identified issue could have affected the fairness or integrity of the assessment.
Where necessary, the journal may review submission records, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, declared competing interests, and other relevant information. A complaint about a reviewer may require reassignment of the manuscript or additional independent assessment if the editor determines that the integrity of the process may have been compromised.
However, disagreement with a reviewer's scientific opinion does not automatically establish bias or misconduct. The assessment must distinguish legitimate scientific criticism from demonstrable procedural irregularities or inappropriate conduct.
Further requirements concerning reviewer confidentiality, independence, and assessment procedures remain governed by ETFLIN's Peer-review Policy.
Complaints About Published Content and Research Integrity
Concerns about the reliability or integrity of published articles may include allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship misconduct, or other serious publication ethics issues.
Such concerns may be submitted under this policy, but their substantive investigation will be handled through the appropriate research-integrity procedure rather than treated solely as an ordinary complaint.
ETFLIN may request relevant supporting data, original files, ethics documentation, explanations from the authors, or other information necessary to evaluate the concern. Where an institutional investigation is required, the journal may contact the relevant research institution, ethics committee, funder, or other competent authority.
The outcome may require clarification, a correction, an expression of concern, a retraction, or another action consistent with the evidence and the significance of the issue. A complaint alone does not establish misconduct, and a lack of agreement between parties does not by itself establish that the published work is unreliable.
The handling of such matters must remain consistent with ETFLIN's Correction, Withdrawal, and Retraction Policy and applicable publication ethics procedures.
Anonymous Complaints
Anonymous complaints may be considered when they contain specific, relevant, and reasonably verifiable information about a possible procedural failure, unethical conduct, or research-integrity concern.
ETFLIN may be unable to obtain clarification from an anonymous complainant or provide individualized updates about the handling of the matter. Anonymous status does not automatically invalidate a complaint, but the decision to proceed will depend on the information available and the feasibility of a fair assessment.
The journal will not make a finding against an individual solely because an anonymous allegation has been received. Any adverse determination must be based on appropriate supporting evidence and a reasonable opportunity for relevant parties to respond, subject to applicable confidentiality and legal requirements.
Complaint Handling and Investigation
Initial Assessment
Following acknowledgment, ETFLIN will identify the nature of the complaint, determine whether it falls within the scope of this policy, and identify the appropriate person to handle it.
If the complaint concerns a matter governed by a specialized editorial policy, the case may be referred to the relevant procedure while remaining subject to appropriate oversight and communication.
The initial assessment may determine that further investigation is necessary, that additional information should be requested, that a concern can be resolved through clarification, or that the matter does not provide a sufficient basis for further action.
A complaint may be declined when it is outside the journal's remit, is unsupported by sufficient information after reasonable opportunities for clarification, or duplicates a matter that has already been fully assessed without presenting new relevant evidence.
Where a complaint contains both valid procedural concerns and abusive or inappropriate language, ETFLIN may request that subsequent communications remain professional while continuing to assess substantive issues that warrant consideration.
Gathering Information and Responses
ETFLIN may request explanations, documents, records, or other information from the complainant and relevant parties. The information requested should be proportionate to the nature of the concern and necessary for a fair assessment.
Where allegations concern a particular individual, that person will ordinarily be informed of the relevant substance of the complaint and given a reasonable opportunity to respond before an adverse determination is made.
The journal may consult independent experts, institutional representatives, ethics committees, or other appropriate authorities when additional expertise or information is needed.
The confidentiality of the complaint must be maintained to the extent possible, but it cannot always be guaranteed that all parties will remain unaware of its existence or details. Information may need to be shared with individuals who must participate in a fair investigation or where disclosure is required by law or another applicable obligation.
Independence and Conflicts of Interest
Individuals involved in assessing a complaint must disclose relevant competing interests and withdraw from the handling of the matter when their impartiality may reasonably be compromised.
Where practicable, complaints should be assessed by someone who was not directly involved in the original event, decision, or conduct under review.
If the concern involves a senior editorial officer or publisher representative, ETFLIN may appoint an independent external assessor or another appropriate person with no material connection to the case.
The level of independent involvement should be proportionate to the seriousness and complexity of the complaint. Not every complaint requires a committee or an external investigation, but the handling must remain sufficiently independent to avoid a person determining the merits of a complaint against themselves.
Possible Outcomes of a Complaint
Depending on the findings, ETFLIN may determine that:
No further action is warranted because the concern is not substantiated or the process was appropriately handled.
Clarification or additional communication is necessary to resolve a misunderstanding or procedural question.
A procedural error occurred and should be corrected.
An editorial matter should be reassigned for independent consideration.
Editorial procedures, instructions, or internal practices should be improved.
A concern warrants a separate research-integrity investigation or referral to an appropriate institution or authority.
A correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other formal publication action is required under the relevant policy.
The action taken must be proportionate to the nature of the complaint and supported by the available evidence.
ETFLIN will communicate the outcome to the complainant to the extent appropriate. Confidential information concerning other individuals, internal deliberations, personnel matters, or sanctions may not be disclosed in full.
Timelines and Communication
ETFLIN will acknowledge appeals and complaints within five working days of receipt.
The journal's primary target is to provide a substantive assessment and final determination within 30 working days of the initial receipt. This is a target rather than an unconditional guarantee for every case.
Some matters may require additional time because of the complexity of the issues, the need to obtain responses from multiple parties, the involvement of external experts, or the requirement for an institutional investigation. In such cases, ETFLIN will inform the relevant parties of the delay, explain the reason where appropriate, and provide updates on the progress of the matter.
Communication will be proportionate to the needs of the case and the applicable confidentiality requirements. The journal may not be able to disclose every investigative step or provide details that could compromise the integrity of the assessment.
If additional information is requested from a complainant or appellant, that person should respond within the period specified by the journal or explain why an extension is necessary. Failure to provide information essential to assessing the matter may result in a decision based on the available evidence.
The target for resolving an appeal or complaint does not guarantee that a manuscript will be accepted, that a previous editorial decision will be reversed, or that a particular individual will receive a specific sanction.
Confidentiality and Protection from Retaliation
ETFLIN will treat appeals and complaints as confidential matters and will limit access to individuals who require the information to assess or resolve the case.
The identities of complainants, appellants, respondents, and other persons involved will be protected to the extent reasonably possible. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed in every case, particularly where a fair opportunity to respond requires disclosure of the substance of an allegation.
Information obtained during an investigation must not be used for unrelated purposes or disclosed publicly without an appropriate basis. The journal may retain relevant records to support accountability, subsequent review, or compliance with applicable obligations.
Individuals who raise concerns in good faith must not be treated adversely merely because they submitted an appeal or complaint. Retaliatory conduct, intimidation, or attempts to interfere with a legitimate assessment may be referred for appropriate action.
Confidentiality does not prevent ETFLIN from taking necessary steps to investigate credible concerns, protect the integrity of the scholarly record, or comply with applicable legal requirements.
Complaints Involving Abusive or Unsupported Communications
ETFLIN expects all appeals, complaints, and related correspondence to remain professional and focused on the relevant issue.
The journal may decline to engage with communications that consist solely of threats, harassment, discriminatory abuse, personal attacks, or repetitive allegations that have already been addressed without new relevant information.
However, inappropriate language does not automatically remove the need to consider a substantive allegation that raises a credible concern about editorial fairness, research integrity, or misconduct. Where practicable, the journal may request that the communication be reformulated in a professional manner while preserving the opportunity to assess the underlying issue.
The journal may limit repetitive or abusive communications when necessary to protect staff and other participants, provided that legitimate substantive concerns are handled appropriately.
Finality and Further Review
Following an appeal or complaint investigation, ETFLIN will communicate the outcome and any appropriate next steps, subject to confidentiality and other applicable restrictions.
An appeal against an editorial decision will ordinarily be final after it has been reconsidered under this policy. A further review may be considered where new material evidence emerges, a significant procedural defect is identified, or another exceptional circumstance justifies reconsideration.
A person who remains dissatisfied with the handling of a complaint may request review by an appropriate independent representative where one has not already assessed the matter. If the complaint concerns the highest-level person responsible for the internal process, ETFLIN will seek an alternative route for independent consideration where practicable.
Where a relevant external body has jurisdiction over the matter, the complainant may consider referring the concern to that body after the journal's internal process has been completed. External organizations determine their own remit and eligibility requirements; ETFLIN does not guarantee that an external organization will accept or reconsider a particular case.
Further review does not automatically suspend an editorial decision or establish that the original process was improper. Any additional assessment will focus on identifiable procedural issues, material evidence, or other legitimate grounds for reconsideration.
Records and Documentation
ETFLIN will maintain appropriate confidential records of appeals and complaints, including the original submission, relevant correspondence, supporting documents, the assessment undertaken, the outcome, and any subsequent actions.
Records will be stored and accessed in accordance with the journal's applicable confidentiality, information management, and retention procedures.
Documentation should be sufficient to explain how the matter was handled and why the outcome was reached. Where relevant, records may also support internal quality assurance, editorial training, or improvements to the journal's policies and procedures.
The journal may use anonymized information from completed cases to identify recurring procedural weaknesses or improve editorial practices. Such use must respect confidentiality and must not disclose identifiable information without an appropriate basis.
Policy Review
ETFLIN will periodically review this policy to ensure that appeals and complaints are handled consistently, fairly, and in accordance with recognized publication ethics principles.
Material changes to the procedures, timelines, or designated handling responsibilities will be reflected in the published policy and communicated through the journal's official website.
Questions or formal submissions under this policy may be directed to halo@etflin.com.