Complaints and Appeals Policy

COMPLAINTS & APPEALS POLICY
Complaints and Appeals Policy
 
1. General Principles

The Da Nang Journal of Medicine and Pharmacy (DJMP) is committed to handling complaints and appeals related to manuscript submission, peer review, editorial processing, and publication in a fair, transparent, objective, confidential, and non-discriminatory manner.

Submitting a legitimate complaint or appeal must not adversely affect the legitimate interests of authors, reviewers, or other relevant parties.

Complaint: A concern regarding process, conduct, delay, communication, ethics, conflicts of interest, or other matters related to Journal operations.
Appeal: A request for the Journal to reconsider an editorial decision concerning a manuscript or published article.
2. Scope of Complaints
• Manuscript submission and handling;
• Unusually prolonged processing times;
• Communication between authors and the Journal;
• Conduct of editors or reviewers;
• Confidentiality;
• Conflicts of interest;
• Inappropriate or non-constructive peer review;
• Publication ethics concerns;
• Application of DJMP policies;
• Post-publication matters.

Unsupported allegations or communications that are abusive, threatening, harassing, or personally attacking may not be considered.

3. Scope of Appeals

Authors may appeal decisions including:

• Rejection at initial editorial screening;
• A major revision decision;
• Rejection after peer review;
• Decisions relating to ethics or integrity;
• Post-publication decisions.

An appeal must be based on scientific reasoning, factual information, or evidence indicating that a significant error may have occurred during assessment or decision-making.

Disagreement with reviewer comments or an editorial decision alone does not automatically constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

4. Information Required for a Complaint or Appeal
• Name and contact information;
• Manuscript ID, where applicable;
• Article title;
• The complaint or decision being appealed;
• A specific and structured explanation;
• Supporting evidence or documents, where available;
• The requested outcome or remedy, where appropriate.

For appeals involving scientific decisions, authors should specifically address the issues that led to the previous decision.

5. Submission Channel

Complaints and appeals should be submitted through DJMP’s official contact channel.

If the matter directly concerns a particular editor, the complaint should be referred to another authorized person without the relevant conflict of interest.

DJMP does not recommend the use of social media or public exchanges as a substitute for the Journal’s formal complaints process.

6. Principles for Handling Complaints and Appeals
• Complaints and appeals are acknowledged and considered seriously;
• Appropriate confidentiality is maintained;
• Conflicts of interest are avoided;
• Relevant parties are given an opportunity to provide explanations;
• Records, evidence, and procedures are reviewed;
• The individual complained about should not be the sole person deciding the outcome;
• Records of the process are retained where appropriate.
7. Handling Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

When an appeal against an editorial decision is received, DJMP may:

• Reconsider the manuscript file;
• Review peer-review reports;
• Request clarification from the previous editor;
• Seek an opinion from an independent editor;
• Invite an additional expert or reviewer where necessary.

An appeal does not automatically change the original decision and does not guarantee that the manuscript will be re-reviewed or accepted for publication.

8. Independence of Review

Where possible, the person handling an appeal should not be the sole individual who made the decision under appeal.

If the appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief, an Editorial Board member, or another directly responsible authority, the matter should be referred to an independent individual or group in accordance with DJMP’s governance structure.

Any person with a conflict of interest must withdraw from consideration of the matter.

9. Complaints Concerning Reviewers

Where an author complains about peer-review comments, DJMP will consider whether those comments:

• Are scientifically relevant and appropriate;
• Breach confidentiality;
• Contain abusive or discriminatory content;
• Indicate a possible conflict of interest;
• Indicate possible misconduct in peer review.

Not every professional disagreement between an author and a reviewer constitutes misconduct.

10. Complaints Concerning Ethics or Misconduct

Complaints involving:

• Plagiarism;
• Data fabrication or falsification;
• Authorship;
• Conflicts of interest;
• Research ethics violations;
• Peer-review manipulation;
• Other serious integrity concerns.

Such matters may be handled under DJMP’s Publication Ethics Policy and Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

11. Timeframe
• Acknowledge receipt within a reasonable period;
• Notify the sender if additional information is required;
• Address the matter as promptly as possible, depending on complexity.

Cases involving ethics investigations, external organizations, or multiple parties may require additional time.

12. Outcomes

Following review, DJMP may:

• Uphold the original decision;
• Modify the decision;
• Request additional assessment;
• Replace an editor or reviewer;
• Require correction of a process;
• Take post-publication action;
• Apply another appropriate measure.

The outcome should be communicated to the complainant or appellant with an appropriate explanation.

13. Repeated Appeals

As a general rule, DJMP will consider one substantiated appeal against the same decision unless important new evidence becomes available.

Repeated submission of the same arguments without new information may not receive further consideration.

14. Confidentiality and Protection of Complainants

DJMP seeks to protect the personal information of complainants to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with proper investigation of the matter.

DJMP does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise good-faith concerns regarding ethics or integrity.