Last updated: August 22, 2024

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they feel that the decision to reject was based on either a significant misunderstanding of a core aspect of the manuscript or concerns regarding the manuscript-handling process.

To raise an appeal about manuscript peer-review, first decision, manuscript revision, editing, and/or second decision, please contact the Science Editor Development Department Director, Jia-Ping Yan via email: [email protected].

To raise an appeal about manuscript production, including typesetting, and/or online releasing, please contact the Production Department Director, Xiang Li via email: [email protected].

For either type of appeal, please quote your manuscript number ID and an explanation of your rationale for the appeal in your email.

To raise a complaint regarding editorial staff, peer reviewer/editorial board, publisher, and/or publishing policies or processes, please contact the Baishideng Office via email at [email protected].

To better respond to people when appeals and complaints are raised, Baishideng handles these appeals and complaints in consultation with all relevant guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and in alignment with our Policies on Handling Appeals and Complaints as follows:

Appeal policy

Authors who wish to appeal the decision on their manuscript may submit a formal appeal request. Appeal requests must be made in writing to the corresponding responsible person listed above with the word “Appeal” and the manuscript number ID in the email subject line and an explanation of the rationale for the appeal in the email body. The appeal request must be submitted by the corresponding author of the manuscript. All authors must agree to the submission of the appeal request, with statement of such in the email body.

Corresponding authors should: (1) Submit their appeal within 2 weeks of the date on which the authors receive the decision from the Editorial Office; (2) Not submit their manuscript to any other journal while their appeal is being considered; (3) Detail in the appeal request letter why they refute the decision and provide point-by-point responses to any of the reviewers’ and/or editors’ comments, together with supporting evidence; (4) Provide supporting evidence if they believe the editor or reviewer has made technical errors in their assessment of the manuscript; and (5) Provide supporting evidence if they believe the editor or the reviewer may have a conflict of interest or has been biased.

Appeal requests which do not comply with the above requirements will be rejected and not considered. Appeals in which the subject matter is part of a legal dispute will not be considered, and we reserve the right to suspend or discontinue an ongoing appeal in such cases.

The time required for the consideration of an appeal may vary from the complexity of the manuscript and its conclusion, among other reasons. Regardless, any appeal request and subsequent processing (see below) will be given priority action.

Processing steps:

Step 1: The appeal request will be considered by the Editorial Office. Where there is an allegation of a conflict of interest on the part of the Editor, the appeal will be handled by a different member of the Editorial Office.

Step 2: The appeal request will be assessed in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Step 3: The corresponding responsible person will notify the corresponding author of the outcome of the appeal.

Step 4: If the manuscript is to be reconsidered, the reconsideration process may involve re-review by the previous or new Peer Reviewers and/or Editorial Board Members, as well as subsequent substantive revision. Only one appeal per manuscript will be considered and the appeal decision will be final.

Complaint policy

Authors who wish to report a complaint regarding any Editorial Staff, Peer Reviewer/Editorial Board Member (including appeal against suspected coerced citation, or if a reviewer is suspected of appropriating author material), the publisher, and/or publishing policies or processes may submit a formal complaint to the Baishideng Office via email at [email protected], with the word “Complaint” in the email subject line and an explanation of the rationale for the complaint in the email body. Any complaint and subsequent processing (see below) will be given priority action.

Processing steps:

Step 1: The complaint request will be considered by the Baishideng Office. To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, complaints regarding Editorial Staff, Peer Reviewer/Editorial Board Member will not be processed by the person who is the subject of the complaint.

Step 2: The complaint will be carefully assessed in accordance with relevant rules and regulations of Baishideng.

Step 3: If the complaint is confirmed, corrective actions will be implemented immediately. These actions include re-training to Editorial Staff and Peer Reviewer/Editorial Board Member; if serious, removal/firing of the Editorial Staff and Peer Reviewer/Editorial Board Member; revision and improvement of the related publishing policies or processes; etc. The criteria for selection of appropriate action(s) depend on the nature of the complaint.

Step 4: The Baishideng Office will notify the complainant of the outcome of the complaint.