What this process covers
This process allows authors, reviewers, readers and other affected people to raise concerns about editorial conduct, the handling of a submission, published content, or the journal’s adherence to its stated policies. An appeal asks the journal to reconsider an editorial decision. A complaint concerns conduct or process. Research-integrity allegations are also assessed under the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Making a complaint or appeal
Send editorial appeals to submissions@gretajournal.com and complaints or requests for independent handling to info@gretajournal.com. Identify the manuscript or article, describe the concern clearly, provide relevant evidence and explain the outcome sought. An appeal should address a substantial factual error, a procedural problem, an undisclosed conflict or a material misunderstanding in the assessment. Disagreement with a decision, without supporting reasons, does not by itself establish grounds for reversal.
Correspondence should be respectful and confined to relevant information. The journal should consider sufficiently specific, credible concerns even when the person raising them cannot safely identify themselves. Confidentiality should be respected as far as the investigation permits, without promising absolute anonymity.
Assessment and response
An unconflicted person should acknowledge and assess the concern, identify the applicable policy and gather the information needed to reach a fair decision. Anyone whose conduct is questioned should have a reasonable opportunity to respond. The journal may seek independent editorial or subject expertise and may request clarification from the complainant or appellant.
The outcome should explain the decision and any corrective action. An appeal may result in the original decision being upheld, a fresh assessment, further review or another justified editorial outcome; acceptance is not guaranteed. A complaint may result in a process correction or a separate integrity investigation.
Independence and escalation
A person must not be the sole judge of a complaint against themselves. Concerns involving the responsible editor will pass to an independent, authorised publisher or editorial representative; named appointments are being finalised. Where institutional investigation is necessary, the journal may refer the relevant concern to the appropriate body while retaining responsibility for its publication decisions.
Case records will be restricted to authorised participants. The journal will explain the review process and communicate material delays. Its response will identify the available escalation route or state when internal consideration is complete. New material evidence will be considered on its merits.