Appeals and Complaints Policy

Purpose

LMDAJ aims to treat authors, reviewers and readers fairly. This policy explains how to appeal an editorial decision and how to make a complaint about the journal’s processes or about conduct. It follows COPE guidance, and draws on Nature Portfolio and JAMA Network practice.

Appeals against editorial decisions

What can be appealed: a decision to reject a manuscript, usually after peer review, or a decision to retract an article or issue an expression of concern.

Grounds for appeal. An appeal should show, with specific points, that:

• the decision was based on a factual error or misunderstanding;
• the reviewers or editors had a conflict of interest or bias;
• the process failed (for example a review was clearly inadequate or a key point was ignored);
• there is new and important evidence that was not available before.

Disagreement with the editors’ judgement of significance or fit alone is not a ground for appeal.

How to appeal

1. Write to the Contact the Editorial Office page within 30 days of the decision, quoting the manuscript ID.
2. Include a point-by-point explanation, any new data, and the reasons why the decision should change. Do not submit a revised manuscript at this stage.
3. Appeals about reviewers’ comments must not try to identify reviewers.

Process

1. The editorial office acknowledges within 3–5 working days.
2. The appeal is considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, or by the Chief Editor. If the Chief Editor made the decision or is conflicted, a designated senior editor decides.
3. The editor may ask for additional reviews, a statistical or subject-expert opinion, or comments from the original handling editor.
4. A decision is communicated within 4–6 weeks with reasons.
5. Outcomes: the decision is upheld; the manuscript is reconsidered, with new or further review; or the decision is overturned and the paper is handled as a revision.
6. Priority is given to papers currently under consideration, so some appeals may take longer. Only one appeal per decision is considered, and the editors’ final decision cannot be appealed further. Authors who remain dissatisfied may contact the Association’s Board or COPE about the process (but not the scientific judgement).
7. A manuscript under appeal may not be submitted elsewhere in the meantime if the journal agrees to reconsider it.

Complaints

Use this procedure for:

• Process failures: long delays, lost messages, unresponsiveness, failure to follow the published process or to meet our own standards;
• Conduct: concerns about the behaviour of an editor, reviewer, author or staff member (unprofessional or discriminatory behaviour, breaches of confidentiality, conflicts of interest);
• Publication ethics concerns about published or submitted work (these also follow the Publication Ethics Policy).

How to complain: write to the Contact the Editorial Office page with details and evidence. Anonymous complaints may be considered if they are specific and supported by evidence.

Process

1. Acknowledged within 5 working days.
2. Process complaints: the Chief Editor, with the Managing Editor or editorial staff, investigates and replies in 4 weeks, and improves the process where needed.
3. Conduct and ethics complaints: the Chief Editor (or an independent editor) follows COPE guidelines, may request information from those involved, and decides on a course of action and informs the complainant of the outcome where possible. Confidentiality is kept as far as possible.
4. If the Chief Editor is the subject of the complaint, it goes to the Association’s Board or a designated independent member.
5. Escalation: if the complainant is dissatisfied with how the complaint was handled, they may ask for a review by the Editorial Board or the Association’s executive, which will be considered by someone not involved. COPE can also be contacted for general guidance.

Fair treatment

• Everyone involved has a chance to respond.
• No retaliation: people who raise concerns in good faith are protected from retaliation.
• Complaints are recorded and reviewed yearly to improve processes.
• Abusive or vexatious communications may be closed after a final response. Communication with respect is expected of everyone.

Language

Appeals and complaints may be written in English or French.

Contact

Appeals and complaints: please use the Contact the Editorial Office page.

Appendix A: Appeal form (outline)

Manuscript ID/title · Corresponding author · Date of decision · Grounds (factual error, bias/conflict, process failure, new evidence) · Point-by-point response · New evidence attached · Declaration that the appeal is made in good faith.

Appendix B: Complaint form (outline)

Name/contact · Type (process / conduct / ethics) · Description and dates · Evidence · Who is involved · Desired outcome.

Submit a Manuscript