Complaints and Appeals

The Journal of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology is committed to handling complaints and appeals in a fair, transparent, confidential, timely, and impartial manner. The journal welcomes legitimate concerns from authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and other stakeholders regarding editorial decisions, publication processes, research integrity, and journal operations.

The journal follows relevant principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and seeks to ensure that complaints and appeals are handled consistently and without compromising editorial independence.

1. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to complaints and appeals concerning matters including:

  • Editorial decisions.
  • Peer-review procedures.
  • Delays in manuscript processing.
  • Alleged conflicts of interest.
  • Reviewer conduct.
  • Editorial conduct.
  • Authorship and contributorship concerns.
  • Publication-ethics issues.
  • Plagiarism or research-misconduct concerns.
  • Corrections and retractions.
  • Copyright and licensing matters.
  • Publication and production errors.
  • Alleged breaches of confidentiality.
  • Other legitimate concerns relating to the journal's publishing activities.

2. Right to Submit a Complaint or Appeal

Authors and other stakeholders have the right to raise a legitimate complaint or appeal when they believe that:

  • The journal's policies were not followed.
  • A significant procedural error occurred.
  • Relevant information was overlooked.
  • There is evidence of an undisclosed conflict of interest.
  • New substantive information has become available.
  • A publication-ethics concern requires investigation.

A complaint or appeal should be based on specific facts, evidence, or identifiable procedural concerns.

3. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe there are substantive grounds for reconsideration.

An appeal should explain:

  • The manuscript title and manuscript ID.
  • The decision being appealed.
  • The specific reason for the appeal.
  • Any factual or methodological issue in the decision.
  • New information or evidence relevant to the decision.
  • A clear explanation of why reconsideration is warranted.

Simply disagreeing with an editor or reviewer is generally not sufficient grounds for an appeal.

4. Peer-Review Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision if they believe that the peer-review process involved a significant procedural problem, such as:

  • A demonstrable factual misunderstanding.
  • A reviewer comment based on an incorrect interpretation of the manuscript.
  • Evidence of a conflict of interest.
  • Reviewer comments that are demonstrably unrelated to the manuscript.
  • A serious breach of confidentiality.
  • Other substantial procedural irregularities.

The journal may request a detailed response addressing the relevant reviewer or editorial comments.

5. Appeals Procedure

Upon receiving an appeal, the Editorial Office will assess whether it contains sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

Where appropriate, the journal may:

  1. Review the original manuscript and editorial record.
  2. Reassess the reviewer comments.
  3. Consult the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief.
  4. Seek an additional independent editorial or peer assessment.
  5. Request clarification from the authors.
  6. Consider new evidence submitted with the appeal.

The journal will make reasonable efforts to ensure that the appeal is assessed by an editor who is independent of the original decision where circumstances require.

6. Finality of Appeals

An appeal may result in:

  • Confirmation of the original decision.
  • Reconsideration of the manuscript.
  • Invitation to revise.
  • Additional peer review.
  • A revised editorial decision.

The outcome of an appeal will normally be considered final after the journal's established appeal process has been completed.

The journal is not obligated to reconsider the same appeal repeatedly when no new substantive evidence is provided.

7. Complaints About Editorial Conduct

Complaints concerning an editor or editorial decision should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief or designated senior editorial authority.

If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief personally, the journal may refer the matter to an appropriate independent member of the editorial leadership or publisher for review.

Editors involved in a complaint should not make the final determination where their own conduct is directly under review.

8. Complaints About Peer Reviewers

Concerns regarding reviewer conduct may include:

  • Breach of confidentiality.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Inappropriate or offensive comments.
  • Misuse of confidential manuscript information.
  • Attempts to obtain inappropriate citation advantages.
  • Other serious breaches of reviewer responsibilities.

The journal may investigate such concerns and take appropriate action, including removing a reviewer from the review process or preventing future review assignments where warranted.

9. Publication Ethics Complaints

Complaints concerning plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, authorship manipulation, unethical research, or other research misconduct will be handled under the journal's Research Misconduct and Publication Ethics Policies.

Where appropriate, the journal may follow relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts and contact the authors' institution or other competent authority.

10. Complaints Concerning Published Articles

Concerns about a published article should include:

  • Article title.
  • DOI or article identifier.
  • Nature of the concern.
  • Relevant evidence or documentation.
  • Explanation of why the concern may affect the reliability or integrity of the published record.

The journal may investigate the concern and, where justified, issue a:

  • Correction.
  • Erratum.
  • Expression of Concern.
  • Retraction.
  • Other appropriate editorial notice.

11. Confidentiality

Complaints and appeals will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

Information will be shared only with individuals who require it for legitimate investigation or decision-making.

The journal will also protect confidential manuscript and peer-review information in accordance with its editorial and privacy policies.

12. Protection Against Retaliation

The journal does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise legitimate concerns or participate in good-faith complaints or investigations.

Complainants are expected to provide truthful and accurate information and should not knowingly submit malicious, defamatory, or fabricated allegations.

13. Timeliness

The Editorial Office will acknowledge legitimate complaints and appeals and seek to process them within a reasonable timeframe.

The time required may vary depending on:

  • The complexity of the issue.
  • The number of parties involved.
  • The need to obtain supporting documentation.
  • Whether an external institution must be contacted.
  • Whether a research-integrity investigation is required.

Where resolution is expected to take significant time, the journal may provide an appropriate status update.

14. Conflicts of Interest

Individuals involved in assessing a complaint or appeal must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where a conflict could compromise impartiality, the journal may appoint another qualified person to assess the matter.

15. Evidence and Documentation

The journal may request supporting documentation when necessary to evaluate a complaint or appeal.

Relevant evidence may include:

  • Correspondence.
  • Manuscript versions.
  • Reviewer reports.
  • Editorial records.
  • Research documentation.
  • Ethical approval documents.
  • Data or supplementary materials.
  • Publication records.

The journal will consider evidence objectively and will not normally make significant findings solely on the basis of an unsupported allegation.

16. Malicious or Repeated Complaints

The journal reserves the right to decline further consideration of complaints that are:

  • Clearly abusive.
  • Threatening.
  • Malicious.
  • Repetitive without new evidence.
  • Intended to improperly influence an editorial decision.

This does not prevent legitimate concerns from being raised again where new substantive evidence becomes available.

17. Independence of Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly, ethical, and procedural considerations.

They must not be influenced by:

  • Commercial interests.
  • Advertising relationships.
  • Article Processing Charges.
  • Author status or reputation.
  • Institutional prestige.
  • Personal relationships.
  • Citation performance.

18. Contact and Submission of Complaints

Complaints and appeals should be submitted through the journal's official editorial contact channel and should clearly identify the relevant manuscript, article, or issue.

Authors should use the corresponding author's official email address where possible and provide sufficient information for the Editorial Office to investigate the matter efficiently.

19. Commitment to Fair Resolution

The Journal of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology is committed to resolving legitimate complaints and appeals through a process that is fair, evidence-based, confidential, and independent.

The journal aims to correct genuine procedural or publication errors while protecting the integrity of the peer-review process and the independence of legitimate editorial decisions.

All complaints and appeals will be handled in accordance with applicable journal policies and relevant COPE principles and guidance.