Appeals and Complaints Policy

Scientific Innovation Research Group (SIRG)

The Scientific Innovation Research Group (SIRG) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, independent, and responsible editorial process across all journals published by SIRG.

SIRG recognizes the right of authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other stakeholders to raise legitimate concerns regarding editorial decisions, editorial procedures, peer review, publication ethics, or the integrity of the published scholarly record.

This Appeals and Complaints Policy establishes the procedures for handling appeals and complaints fairly, confidentially, and consistently.

1. Scope

This policy applies to journals published by the Scientific Innovation Research Group (SIRG).

It covers:

  • Appeals against editorial decisions;

  • Complaints regarding editorial procedures;

  • Complaints concerning delays or communication;

  • Complaints concerning peer review;

  • Publication-ethics complaints;

  • Complaints concerning conflicts of interest;

  • Concerns regarding research integrity; and

  • Other legitimate concerns relating to the publication process.

Each SIRG journal may maintain additional journal-specific procedures provided that they are consistent with this publisher-level policy.

2. General Principles

SIRG handles appeals and complaints according to the following principles:

  • Fairness

  • Impartiality

  • Confidentiality

  • Transparency

  • Editorial independence

  • Respect for all parties

  • Proportionality

  • Timely handling

Appeals and complaints are considered independently of an author's nationality, institutional affiliation, academic status, membership status, previous publication history, or other irrelevant personal or professional characteristics.

No person involved in the original decision should determine an appeal where a significant conflict of interest exists.

3. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

An author may appeal an editorial decision when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the decision resulted from:

  • A factual or methodological misunderstanding;

  • A significant error in the interpretation of the manuscript;

  • A reviewer or editor conflict of interest;

  • A serious procedural irregularity;

  • Evidence that relevant information was not appropriately considered; or

  • Another substantive reason that could reasonably affect the editorial decision.

An appeal should not be based solely on disagreement with the scientific opinion of the editor or reviewers.

Appeals are not intended to provide an opportunity to submit a substantially different manuscript or to restart the peer-review process without a valid reason.

4. How to Submit an Appeal

Appeals should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office of the journal that made the original decision.

The appeal should include:

  1. The manuscript title;

  2. The manuscript identification number;

  3. The corresponding author's name and contact information;

  4. The original editorial decision;

  5. A clear explanation of the reason for the appeal;

  6. Specific responses to relevant editorial or reviewer comments, where applicable; and

  7. Supporting scientific or procedural evidence, where appropriate.

Appeals should be submitted by the corresponding author or with the authorization of the corresponding author.

5. Appeal Timeframe

Authors should normally submit an appeal within 30 calendar days of receiving the editorial decision.

Appeals submitted after this period may still be considered when there are exceptional circumstances or when the appeal concerns a serious publication-ethics or research-integrity matter.

The submission of an appeal does not automatically suspend other applicable editorial or publication procedures.

6. Assessment of an Appeal

The initial appeal will normally be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or by an appropriately qualified independent editor who was not responsible for the original decision.

The person reviewing the appeal may:

  • Uphold the original decision;

  • Request an additional independent editorial or expert opinion;

  • Reconsider the decision;

  • Request clarification or additional information from the authors;

  • Request additional peer review; or

  • Take another appropriate action consistent with the journal's policies.

An appeal will not necessarily result in a change to the original decision.

7. Independent Review of Appeals

Where an appeal raises substantive concerns about the original editorial process, an independent editor or qualified academic may be asked to assess the matter.

The independent reviewer should not have a conflict of interest with the authors, reviewers, or original handling editor.

Where necessary, additional peer review may be obtained.

The purpose of an independent assessment is to determine whether the original editorial process and decision were reasonable and consistent with the journal's policies.

8. Outcome of an Appeal

The author will be informed of the outcome of the appeal once the assessment has been completed.

Possible outcomes include:

  • The original decision is upheld;

  • The manuscript is reconsidered;

  • Additional peer review is conducted;

  • The manuscript is returned for revision; or

  • Another appropriate editorial action is taken.

The outcome will normally represent the final editorial position of the journal regarding that submission.

A successful appeal does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

9. Complaints About Editorial Processes

Authors and other stakeholders may submit complaints concerning the editorial process, including:

  • Excessive or unexplained delays;

  • Failure to communicate appropriately;

  • Administrative or procedural errors;

  • Problems with manuscript handling;

  • Concerns regarding peer-review procedures;

  • Inappropriate editorial conduct; or

  • Other significant failures in the editorial process.

Complaints should be submitted to the relevant journal's Editorial Office.

The complaint should provide sufficient information to allow the matter to be investigated.

10. Complaints About Delays

SIRG recognizes that reasonable processing times are important to authors and reviewers.

Where a complaint concerns an excessive delay, the Editorial Office will review, where applicable:

  • The manuscript's submission date;

  • Editorial assignment;

  • Peer-review status;

  • Reviewer invitations and responses;

  • Editorial correspondence; and

  • Other relevant processing information.

Where a delay is identified, reasonable steps should be taken to resolve the issue.

However, legitimate peer-review delays may occur because of reviewer availability, the need to obtain additional expert opinions, or other circumstances beyond the journal's immediate control.

11. Complaints Concerning Peer Review

Concerns regarding peer review may include:

  • Reviewer misconduct;

  • Breach of confidentiality;

  • Inappropriate reviewer comments;

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • Suspected reviewer identity manipulation;

  • Reviewer bias; or

  • Other serious irregularities in the peer-review process.

Such concerns will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated independent editor.

Where necessary, the journal may:

  • Replace a reviewer;

  • Seek additional peer review;

  • Exclude a compromised review;

  • Investigate potential misconduct; or

  • Take other appropriate corrective action.

12. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Complaints

SIRG takes allegations of publication misconduct and research-integrity violations seriously.

Concerns may include, but are not limited to:

  • Plagiarism;

  • Duplicate or redundant publication;

  • Fabrication of data;

  • Falsification of data;

  • Image manipulation;

  • Authorship disputes;

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • Citation manipulation;

  • Peer-review manipulation;

  • Unethical research practices;

  • Breaches of research ethics approval requirements; or

  • Other forms of academic or publication misconduct.

Such concerns will be handled in accordance with the relevant journal's publication ethics policies and applicable principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

13. Handling Ethical Complaints

When a publication-ethics concern is received, the Editorial Office may:

  1. Acknowledge receipt of the concern;

  2. Assess whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibility;

  3. Request relevant information or supporting evidence;

  4. Contact the authors or other relevant parties when appropriate;

  5. Consult editors, reviewers, institutions, or independent experts when necessary;

  6. Consult the SIRG Publisher where appropriate;

  7. Determine appropriate editorial action; and

  8. Document the outcome of the investigation.

Investigations will be conducted as fairly and confidentially as reasonably possible.

14. Complaints Concerning Published Articles

Concerns about articles that have already been published may be submitted by:

  • Authors;

  • Readers;

  • Reviewers;

  • Editors;

  • Researchers;

  • Institutions; or

  • Other individuals with relevant information.

Depending on the circumstances, SIRG or the relevant journal may consider:

  • Correction;

  • Erratum;

  • Corrigendum;

  • Expression of Concern;

  • Retraction; or

  • No corrective action where the concern is not substantiated.

Any corrective action will be taken in accordance with the relevant journal's policies and applicable publication-ethics principles.

15. Conflicts of Interest in Appeals and Complaints

Anyone involved in reviewing an appeal or complaint must disclose any relevant conflict of interest.

An individual should not handle a matter where their involvement could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Where appropriate, the matter will be reassigned to another qualified editor or independent person.

16. Confidentiality

Appeals and complaints will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

Information will be shared only with individuals who need it for the legitimate assessment or investigation of the matter.

SIRG will seek to protect:

  • Authors;

  • Reviewers;

  • Editors;

  • Complainants; and

  • Other individuals involved in an investigation

from unnecessary disclosure of confidential information.

Confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is necessary to investigate serious allegations, comply with applicable legal or institutional requirements, or protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

17. Protection Against Retaliation

SIRG does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise legitimate concerns or submit good-faith appeals.

Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and other stakeholders may raise legitimate concerns without fear of unfair treatment as a result of doing so.

However, deliberately false, malicious, defamatory, or abusive complaints may be handled as inappropriate conduct.

18. Complaints Concerning Editorial Independence

SIRG recognizes the importance of editorial independence.

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly considerations, including:

  • Scientific quality;

  • Originality;

  • Methodological soundness;

  • Relevance;

  • Ethical compliance; and

  • The journal's aims and scope.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

  • Financial considerations;

  • Membership status;

  • Institutional relationships;

  • Personal relationships;

  • Commercial interests; or

  • Other inappropriate external pressures.

The SIRG Publisher does not override legitimate scholarly editorial decisions made by the appropriate journal editorial team.

19. No-APC and Financial Independence

SIRG journals operate under a No Article Processing Charge (No APC) publishing model.

Authors are not required to pay APCs or publication fees for:

  • Submission;

  • Peer review;

  • Acceptance; or

  • Publication.

There is also no fee for submitting an appeal or complaint.

Appeals and complaints are handled independently of any financial consideration.

No author will receive preferential treatment, and no editorial decision will be influenced by financial or membership considerations.

20. Role of the SIRG Publisher

The SIRG Publisher may become involved in an appeal or complaint when:

  • The matter concerns publisher-level policy;

  • There is a serious publication-ethics concern;

  • The Editor-in-Chief requests publisher guidance;

  • There is a potential conflict of interest involving the journal's editorial leadership;

  • The complaint concerns a publishing or administrative process; or

  • An issue requires escalation beyond the journal's editorial structure.

The publisher's role is to support appropriate process, policy compliance, and publication integrity.

The publisher does not replace the independent editorial judgment of the journal's Editor-in-Chief or editorial team.

21. External Advice

For complex publication-ethics cases, SIRG or the relevant journal may seek advice from appropriate independent experts, institutions, professional organizations, or recognized publication-ethics resources, including COPE where applicable.

External advice does not automatically determine the editorial outcome.

The final action remains the responsibility of the appropriate editorial or publishing authority.

22. Escalation of Unresolved Complaints

If a complainant believes that a complaint has not been handled appropriately, they may request that the matter be reviewed by an appropriate senior editorial or publishing authority.

Where applicable, serious publication-ethics matters may be referred to the relevant institution or other competent authority.

External escalation should normally occur after the journal's internal complaint procedure has been reasonably exhausted, except where immediate external reporting is appropriate because of the nature of the concern.

23. Communication and Response Times

SIRG aims to acknowledge formal complaints within 5 working days, where reasonably possible.

The time required to investigate a complaint will depend on:

  • The complexity of the matter;

  • The number of parties involved;

  • The availability of relevant evidence;

  • The need for external advice; and

  • Whether an institutional or ethical investigation is required.

SIRG aims to provide a substantive response within a reasonable timeframe whenever possible.

Complex publication-ethics cases may require additional time to ensure a fair and appropriate investigation.

24. Record Keeping

SIRG and its journals may maintain appropriate records of appeals and complaints, including:

  • Date of receipt;

  • Nature of the matter;

  • Relevant manuscript or article identification;

  • Parties involved;

  • Investigation steps;

  • Decisions or outcomes; and

  • Corrective actions, where applicable.

Records will be handled confidentially and retained in accordance with applicable policies and requirements.

25. Finality of Editorial Appeals

The outcome of an appeal represents the journal's final editorial position regarding the relevant submission, unless new and substantive evidence becomes available or a significant procedural or ethical issue is subsequently identified.

Repeated appeals based solely on disagreement with the final editorial decision may not be considered.

A final rejection following an appeal does not prevent the authors from submitting a substantially different or appropriately revised manuscript as a new submission, provided that the new submission complies with the journal's policies and is not presented as a continuation of an unresolved appeal.

26. Contact

Appeals and complaints should normally be directed first to the Editorial Office of the relevant SIRG journal.

If the appropriate journal contact cannot be identified, or if the matter concerns a publisher-level issue, the complainant may contact:

SIRG Editorial Office
Email: editorialoffice@pub.scientificirg.com

When submitting a complaint or appeal, please include the relevant manuscript or article identification number and sufficient information to allow the matter to be assessed.

27. Policy Review

SIRG periodically reviews this policy to ensure continued alignment with developments in scholarly publishing, publication ethics, editorial best practices, and applicable standards of indexing and abstracting services.

SIRG reserves the right to revise this policy when necessary.

Any revised version will be published on the official SIRG website with an updated effective date.

Publisher: Scientific Innovation Research Group (SIRG)
Policy: Appeals and Complaints Policy
Publishing Model: Open Access — No APC
Effective Date: September 2026
Last Updated: September 2026