General Principles
Science Insights seeks to ensure that complaints and appeals concerning its journals are considered fairly, objectively and without inappropriate influence.
Raising a complaint or submitting an appeal in good faith will not, by itself, disadvantage an author, reviewer or other individual in future interactions with Science Insights or its journals.
Complaints and appeals should identify the matter in question clearly and provide sufficient information to allow an appropriate assessment. Decisions will be based on the relevant facts, journal policies and applicable editorial standards.
Complaints
A complaint may concern the conduct or handling of the editorial, peer-review or publication process, an alleged failure to follow an applicable policy, inappropriate conduct or another matter relating to the activities of a Science Insights journal.
Complaints should describe the specific concern, identify the relevant manuscript, article or editorial matter where applicable, and provide supporting information that may assist in evaluating the issue.
General disagreement with an editorial decision is normally considered through the appeals process rather than as a complaint.
Editorial Appeals
Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision where they believe that a significant factual error, procedural problem or material misunderstanding affected the assessment of their manuscript.
An appeal is an opportunity to request reconsideration. It does not guarantee that the original editorial decision will be changed or that a manuscript will undergo additional peer review.
Differences of scholarly opinion between authors, reviewers and editors do not automatically provide grounds for overturning an editorial decision.
Grounds for Appeal
An appeal should identify a substantive reason why reconsideration is warranted. Appropriate grounds may include a significant factual misunderstanding, a material error in the evaluation of the manuscript, a relevant procedural irregularity or important information that was not appropriately considered during the original decision.
Authors should explain the specific basis of the appeal and, where relevant, respond to the scientific or editorial issues underlying the decision.
An appeal should not consist solely of a request for acceptance, a general disagreement with reviewer comments or dissatisfaction with an editorial outcome.
Submitting an Appeal
An appeal should normally be submitted by the corresponding author through the communication channel specified by the relevant journal.
The appeal should identify the manuscript, describe the decision being challenged and provide a concise and reasoned explanation of the grounds for reconsideration.
Relevant supporting information may be included where it is necessary to demonstrate a factual, procedural or scholarly issue that may have materially affected the decision.
Authors should avoid submitting repeated appeals that raise no materially new information after the matter has been appropriately considered.
Assessment of Appeals
An appeal may be reviewed by the responsible editor, another suitably qualified editor or an appropriate senior editorial representative, depending on the nature of the matter and any relevant conflict of interest.
The assessment may include review of the original manuscript, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, the author's appeal and other information relevant to the decision.
Additional expert or editorial advice may be sought where necessary. A manuscript may also be returned for further peer review where this is considered appropriate, but additional review is not automatic.
Complaints Concerning Peer Review
Concerns about peer review may include allegations of inappropriate reviewer conduct, undisclosed conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, serious factual problems in a review or possible manipulation of the review process.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and disagreement with a reviewer's scholarly opinion does not by itself establish inappropriate conduct.
Credible concerns about the integrity of peer review will be assessed in accordance with the circumstances and the Peer Review Policy .
Complaints Concerning Ethics or Misconduct
Complaints involving possible fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, authorship manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed competing interests or other serious integrity concerns may require a separate research-integrity assessment.
Such matters may be considered under the Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy rather than being resolved solely through the ordinary complaints procedure.
Where a concern relates to already published material, appropriate post-publication action may also be considered under the Corrections and Retractions Policy .
Conflicts of Interest
A person should not be responsible for determining the outcome of a complaint or appeal where a relevant conflict of interest could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartial consideration of the matter.
Where an appropriate conflict exists, the matter should be assigned to another suitable individual who can assess it independently.
Relevant requirements are described further in the Conflicts of Interest Policy .
Professional Conduct
Correspondence concerning complaints and appeals should remain professional, relevant and respectful. Science Insights recognizes that disagreements concerning editorial decisions can be significant to the parties involved, but such disagreements should be addressed through reasoned communication.
Threatening, abusive, discriminatory or knowingly false communications are not acceptable and may be handled separately from the substantive complaint or appeal.
Legitimate criticism or disagreement expressed in good faith will not be treated as inappropriate merely because it challenges an editorial decision or process.
Confidentiality
Complaints and appeals will be handled with appropriate confidentiality. Information may, however, need to be shared with editors, reviewers, authors, institutions, advisers or other relevant parties where this is necessary to assess the matter fairly.
Confidentiality cannot always be absolute, particularly where allegations require investigation by an institution or another responsible authority.
Personal information should be handled in accordance with applicable privacy requirements and the Privacy Policy .
Possible Outcomes
Following consideration of a complaint or appeal, the original decision or action may be upheld, reconsidered or modified depending on the evidence and circumstances.
Where appropriate, possible outcomes may include further editorial assessment, additional peer review, correction of a procedural error, reassignment to another editor, revision of an editorial decision or other action necessary to address the identified issue.
Where the complaint concerns published content, an appropriate correction, expression of concern, retraction or other post-publication action may be considered where warranted.
Escalation
Where a complainant believes that a substantive complaint has not been appropriately addressed, the matter may be referred to a more senior editorial or publishing representative where an additional level of review is appropriate and available.
Escalation should identify the specific unresolved issue and explain why the previous response is considered inadequate. It should not merely repeat the original complaint without addressing the response already provided.
Matters requiring investigation by an institution, employer, ethics committee, funding organization or another competent authority may be referred to the relevant body where appropriate.
Finality of Decisions
Science Insights aims to give substantive complaints and properly supported appeals appropriate consideration. Once the relevant review and any available escalation have been completed, the resulting editorial or publishing decision may be treated as final.
Repeated correspondence raising substantially the same issues without new evidence or material information may not receive further substantive review.
This does not prevent consideration of genuinely new evidence or significant integrity concerns that arise after a previous complaint or appeal has been concluded.