Complaints & Appeals Policy

1. Introduction

The Journal of Global Research in Multidisciplinary Studies (JGRMS) is committed to ensuring fairness, transparency, accountability, and integrity throughout the editorial and publication process. The journal recognizes that concerns, complaints, and appeals may arise during manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, or after publication.

This policy provides a clear and transparent procedure for submitting, investigating, and resolving complaints and appeals in a timely, impartial, and confidential manner.

The journal aims to resolve all concerns fairly while maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.

2. Scope

This policy applies to:

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Editors
  • Editorial Board Members
  • Readers
  • Institutions
  • Research Organizations
  • Funding Agencies

It covers complaints and appeals relating to manuscripts under review, accepted manuscripts, and published articles.

3. Types of Complaints

Complaints may relate to, but are not limited to:

Editorial Process

  • Unreasonable delays in editorial processing.
  • Failure to follow editorial procedures.
  • Lack of communication.
  • Administrative errors.

Peer Review

  • Concerns regarding the fairness of peer review.
  • Reviewer misconduct.
  • Biased or inappropriate reviewer comments.
  • Breach of reviewer confidentiality.

Publication Ethics

  • Suspected plagiarism.
  • Duplicate publication.
  • Research misconduct.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Authorship disputes.
  • Ethical approval concerns.

Published Articles

  • Requests for corrections.
  • Errors in published articles.
  • Requests for retraction.
  • Concerns regarding data integrity.

Journal Policies

  • Copyright issues.
  • Licensing concerns.
  • Open Access policies.
  • Publication fees.
  • Editorial independence.

4. Editorial Decision Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions when they believe that:

  • A significant misunderstanding occurred during peer review.
  • Important evidence was overlooked.
  • Procedural errors affected the editorial decision.
  • Reviewer comments contain factual inaccuracies.
  • Editorial policies were not properly followed.

Appeals should focus on scientific or procedural matters rather than differences of opinion.

5. Grounds That Are Not Normally Considered for Appeal

The following are generally not sufficient grounds for appeal:

  • Disagreement with reviewers' academic opinions alone.
  • Dissatisfaction with requested revisions.
  • Failure to meet the journal's scope or quality standards.
  • Requests to reconsider without supporting evidence.

The journal does not guarantee that every appeal will result in reconsideration.

6. Submitting a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office and should include:

  • Full name of the complainant.
  • Contact information.
  • Article title (if applicable).
  • Manuscript identification number (if applicable).
  • Detailed description of the complaint.
  • Relevant supporting documentation.
  • Preferred outcome, if appropriate.

Anonymous complaints may be considered when supported by credible evidence, but the journal may have limited ability to investigate them fully.

7. Submitting an Appeal

Appeals against editorial decisions should normally be submitted within 30 days of receiving the decision.

The appeal should include:

  • Manuscript title.
  • Manuscript ID.
  • Date of the editorial decision.
  • Detailed explanation of the grounds for appeal.
  • Point-by-point response to reviewer comments (where applicable).
  • Supporting evidence.

The corresponding author should submit appeals on behalf of all co-authors.

8. Complaint Handling Procedure

Upon receiving a complaint, the Editorial Office will:

  1. Acknowledge receipt, normally within 5 working days.
  2. Conduct an initial assessment.
  3. Request additional information if necessary.
  4. Consult relevant editors or reviewers where appropriate.
  5. Investigate the matter fairly and confidentially.
  6. Reach a decision based on the available evidence.
  7. Notify the complainant of the outcome.

The journal aims to resolve most complaints within 30 working days, although complex cases may require additional time.

9. Appeal Review Process

Editorial appeals are reviewed independently.

Depending on the circumstances, the appeal may involve:

  • The Editor-in-Chief.
  • A different Handling Editor.
  • An independent Editorial Board Member.
  • Additional expert reviewers.

The appeal process may include a fresh assessment of the manuscript or specific aspects of the original review.

The final decision of the Editor-in-Chief, following completion of the appeal process, shall normally be considered final.

10. Confidentiality

All complaints and appeals are handled confidentially.

Information will only be shared with individuals directly involved in resolving the matter or where disclosure is required by law or necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

11. Fairness and Impartiality

JGRMS is committed to ensuring that:

  • Every complaint is considered objectively.
  • All parties are treated respectfully.
  • Decisions are evidence-based.
  • Conflicts of interest are appropriately managed.
  • No individual is disadvantaged for raising legitimate concerns in good faith.

12. Complaints Regarding Editors

Complaints concerning editorial conduct should be submitted directly to the Editor-in-Chief.

If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it should be submitted to the Publisher (Saanvi Publications) for independent review.

Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure an impartial assessment.

13. Complaints Regarding Reviewers

Complaints regarding reviewers may include:

  • Unprofessional language.
  • Personal criticism.
  • Breach of confidentiality.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Unreasonable delays.

Where appropriate, the journal may:

  • Replace the reviewer.
  • Disregard the review.
  • Seek additional reviews.
  • Remove the reviewer from the reviewer database.

14. Frivolous or Malicious Complaints

The journal welcomes legitimate concerns raised in good faith.

However, complaints that are knowingly false, malicious, abusive, or intended solely to disrupt the editorial process may not be investigated and may result in appropriate editorial action.

15. Relationship to Other Policies

Depending on the nature of the complaint, JGRMS may also apply the procedures described in its:

  • Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement
  • Research Misconduct Policy
  • Peer Review Policy
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Retraction Policy
  • Corrections & Errata Policy

16. Policy Review

This Complaints & Appeals Policy will be reviewed periodically to ensure consistency with evolving best practices in scholarly publishing and publication ethics.

Contact

Complaints and appeals should be submitted to the Editorial Office using the official contact details provided on the journal website.

Please include all relevant information to facilitate a timely and fair review.

Recommended Email Subject Lines

Complaint

Subject: Complaint Regarding Manuscript JGRMS-2026-00123

Appeal

Subject: Appeal Against Editorial Decision – Manuscript JGRMS-2026-00123

Brief service standard for JGRMS:

Editorial Activity Target Time
Initial editorial screening 3–5 working days
Reviewer invitation Within 7 days
First editorial decision 3–6 weeks
Response to complaints Within 5 working days
Resolution of complaints Within 30 working days
Appeal decision Within 30–45 working days