Complaints and Appeals Policy
Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration (Triple R) Journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity, fairness, transparency, and accountability in scientific publishing. In strict alignment with the core practices and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), this policy outlines the formal procedures for handling complaints, editorial disputes, and appeals raised by authors, reviewers, editors, or readers.
1- Scope of Complaints and Appeals
The journal provides a formal mechanism to address legitimate concerns regarding editorial processes, publication ethics, and administrative decisions. The scope covers:
-Editorial Decisions: Disputes regarding the rejection of a manuscript where the author provides evidence of factual errors, critical peer review misunderstandings, or bias influencing the outcome.
-Peer Review Integrity: Allegations of reviewer bias, academic misconduct, inappropriate or unprofessional review comments, breaches of confidentiality, or undeclared competing interests during review.
-Research and Publication Misconduct: Allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate/redundant publication, salami slicing, or unauthorized image manipulation.
-Authorship and Contributorship Disputes: Disputes concerning authorship inclusion/exclusion, authorship order, or disputes arising before or after publication.
-Ethical Approvals and Consent Violations: Inadequacies or non-compliance regarding institutional review board (IRB) ethical approval, animal welfare protocols, or patient informed consent.
-Conflicts of Interest: Undeclared financial or non-financial conflicts of interest involving authors, peer reviewers, or handling editors.
-Administrative and Operational Issues: Significant and unexplained delays or failures in editorial communication and process management.
2- Submission Guidelines
All formal complaints and appeals must be submitted in writing via email to the Editorial Office:
-Dedicated Contact Email: Insert Email Address, e.g., tripler@sbmu.ac.ir
-Required Documentation:
Note on Anonymous Complaints: While full transparency is strongly encouraged, anonymous complaints will be considered if accompanied by clear, verifiable documentary evidence of significant ethical misconduct or data compromise.
3- Investigation and Assessment Workflow
3.1. Acknowledgment and Initial Review
-The Editorial Office formally acknowledges receipt within 5 working days.
An initial screening is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief (or a designated Senior Editor) to determine whether the submission presents valid grounds and substantive evidence.
3.2. Investigation and Conflict Management
-If the complaint involves the Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor, they will be entirely recused from the process. The matter will be delegated to an independent Associate Editor, an ad-hoc Editorial Advisory Committee, or an external ombudsperson.
-All relevant parties (e.g., authors, reviewers, or handling editors) will be notified and provided a fair opportunity to submit written responses.
-Standard investigations aim to conclude within 30 working days. For highly complex disputes requiring institutional inquiries or external expert consultation, all parties will be notified of extended timelines.
4- Resolution and Editorial Outcomes
Upon concluding the investigation, the Editor-in-Chief or designated review committee issues a formal written decision summarizing:
-Manuscript Re-evaluation: Inviting a revised submission or assigning independent new reviewers.
-Upholding the Decision: Affirming the original rejection or editorial ruling.
-Post-Publication Notices: Publishing an Erratum, Corrigendum, Expression of Concern, or initiating a Retraction in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines.
-Institutional Notification: Contacting author institutions or funding bodies in substantiated cases of severe scientific misconduct.
5- Formal Appeals Process (Second-Tier Review)
If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the initial resolution, they may request a secondary appeal under strict conditions:
Filing Window: The appeal must be submitted within 30 calendar days of receiving the initial formal decision.
-Prerequisite: The appeal must present substantial **new evidence**, technical data, or methodological justifications that were not available during the initial review. Re-submitting previous arguments without new evidence will not be considered.
-Independent Review Panel: Appeals are evaluated by an independent panel consisting of Editorial Board members and/or external subject-matter experts who had no prior involvement with the manuscript.
-Finality: The decision of the independent panel is final and binding. The outcome will be communicated within 45 working days of appeal submission.
6- Protection, Confidentiality, and Non-Retaliation
-Confidentiality: All documentation, correspondence, and identities associated with complaints and appeals are treated with strict confidentiality, shared only with parties directly involved in the investigation.
-Protection Against Retaliation: Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration (Triple R) Journal maintains a strict zero-tolerance policy against retaliation. Raising concerns in good faith will not negatively affect the handling of current or future submissions by the complainant.
7- Record Keeping and Continuous Improvement
The Editorial Office securely archives all case files, correspondence, and investigation findings. Anonymized summaries of complaints and procedural bottlenecks are periodically reviewed by the Editorial Board to refine journal workflows, enhance reviewer guidelines, and prevent systemic errors.
8- Editorial Office Contact
For formal complaints, appeals, or procedural inquiries, please contact:
Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration (Triple R) Journal Editorial Office
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences