1. Scope of Complaints and Appeals

This policy applies to concerns arising from the journal's editorial, peer review, publication ethics, administrative, and post-publication processes.

1.1 Matters Covered

Eligible concerns may include:

• Editorial screening, desk-rejection decisions, acceptance, rejection, and revision decisions.
• Peer review procedures, reviewer selection, reviewer conduct, and alleged bias or procedural irregularities.
• Unreasonable editorial delays, inadequate communication, and administrative errors.
• Conflicts of interest involving authors, reviewers, editors, editorial personnel, or the publisher.
• Allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, or other publication ethics concerns.
• Confidentiality breaches, misuse of unpublished materials, and inappropriate handling of sensitive research information.
• Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and other post-publication decisions.
• Copyright, licensing, data protection, and publication permissions.
• Article Processing Charge administration, waiver decisions, invoices, or other publishing-service matters.
• Professional conduct, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or other serious concerns involving the journal's editorial or publishing operations.

1.2 Eligible Complainants

Complaints may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, contributors, research participants, institutions, research ethics committees, funders, publishers, rights holders, or other parties presenting a legitimate concern.

Formal appeals against a manuscript decision are normally submitted by the corresponding author on behalf of the author group. Where appropriate, another affected author or authorized representative may request consideration.

1.3 Distinction Between Complaints and Appeals

Where a submission raises both an appeal and a complaint, the Editorial Office may coordinate the procedures while ensuring that the different issues are assessed by appropriately qualified and impartial individuals.

2. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

An editorial appeal allows authors to request reconsideration of a formal manuscript decision where they believe a material error or procedural irregularity may have affected the outcome.

An appeal is not an automatic additional round of peer review and does not create an entitlement to acceptance or reconsideration solely because an author disagrees with an editorial judgment.

2.1 Valid Grounds for Appeal

An appeal may be considered where evidence indicates that:

• A material factual error affected the editorial decision.
• A reviewer or editor substantially misunderstood the research design, methods, evidence, findings, or principal argument.
• Significant scientific information already present in the manuscript or author response was overlooked.
• The journal's stated editorial or peer review procedures were not followed in a way that may have affected the outcome.
• An undisclosed or inadequately managed conflict of interest may have compromised impartiality.
• The decision may have been influenced by bias, discrimination, inappropriate conduct, or improper external pressure.
• A journal policy or research reporting requirement was materially misapplied.
• Relevant new evidence demonstrates that a material premise of the original decision was incorrect.

2.2 Appeal Documentation

An appeal should include:

• The manuscript identification number and full title.
• The date and type of the editorial decision being appealed.
• A clear and specific explanation of the grounds for reconsideration.
• A point-by-point response to relevant reviewer or editor comments, where applicable.
• Supporting evidence, relevant manuscript references, or documentation of the alleged procedural problem.
• A concise explanation of how the identified problem could have affected the decision.

2.3 Timing of Appeals

Authors should submit an appeal within a reasonable period following notification of the decision, ordinarily without unnecessary delay.

The journal may consider an appeal submitted later where the relevant information could not reasonably have been identified earlier, material new evidence becomes available, or the case raises serious ethical, legal, or procedural concerns.

2.4 Matters That Do Not Normally Justify Reconsideration

An appeal will not normally be reopened solely because:

• The authors disagree with a scientifically justified editorial assessment.
• One or more reviewers recommended acceptance but the responsible editor reached a different conclusion.
• The authors believe the manuscript is important without identifying a material error in its assessment.
• The authors seek to present substantial new research that was not included in the original submission.
• The appeal repeats previously considered arguments without presenting relevant new evidence or identifying a substantive defect.

Substantially redesigned studies or manuscripts incorporating major new findings may require a new submission rather than an appeal.

3. Complaints Handling Process

The journal follows a structured procedure for receiving, assessing, investigating, and responding to formal complaints.

3.1 Submission of a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the Health Nexus Editorial Office through its official contact email.

A complaint should provide, where applicable:

• The name and contact information of the complainant, unless anonymity is requested.
• The relevant manuscript ID, article DOI, publication URL, or other identifying reference.
• A clear description of the concern and relevant events.
• The dates and circumstances involved.
• Relevant evidence, correspondence, or supporting documentation.
• The outcome or remedy requested, where appropriate.

3.2 Acknowledgment

3.3 Initial Assessment

The Editorial Office determines whether the submission falls within the scope of this policy, identifies the principal issues, and considers whether the matter should be handled as an appeal, an administrative complaint, a publication ethics inquiry, or another appropriate procedure.

Complaints that lack sufficient information may require clarification before a substantive assessment can proceed.

3.4 Investigation and Consultation

Depending on the nature of the concern, the responsible person may:

• Review the relevant editorial correspondence and submission records.
• Seek explanations from the individuals or departments involved.
• Request additional evidence from the complainant or affected parties.
• Consult an independent editor or appropriately qualified expert.
• Refer specialist ethical or research integrity matters to the applicable procedure.
• Consider necessary interim action where a serious confidentiality, clinical safety, or legal concern exists.

3.5 Response and Communication

The journal seeks to provide a reasoned response that explains the outcome to an appropriate degree, identifies any relevant corrective action, and indicates whether further internal review is available.

The duration of an investigation depends on the complexity of the matter, the availability of evidence, and any necessary external consultation or institutional investigation.

Where a case cannot be resolved promptly, the Editorial Office should communicate material delays or relevant procedural updates where confidentiality and the circumstances permit.

4. Appeal Review Process

Appeals are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately qualified and unconflicted editor or editorial board member authorized to conduct the review.

4.1 Independent Assessment

Where practicable, the person conducting the substantive appeal assessment should not have been directly responsible for the original decision. At a minimum, a person with a material conflict of interest must not exercise sole control over the appeal.

If the appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief, an appropriate unconflicted editor, editorial board member, or independent adviser should be designated to assess the matter. The publisher may assist with arranging an appropriate review without controlling its scholarly outcome.

4.2 Available Review Measures

The appeal assessor may:

• Review the manuscript, original decision, reviewer reports, and relevant author correspondence.
• Determine whether a material factual or procedural error occurred.
• Request clarification from the original Handling Editor.
• Obtain additional independent expert or methodological assessment.
• Arrange further peer review where academically justified.
• Refer a specific ethical or publication integrity question to the appropriate journal procedure.

4.3 Possible Appeal Decisions

An appeal may result in:

• Upholding the original editorial decision.
• Amending or withdrawing a decision affected by a material error.
• Reopening the manuscript for further editorial consideration.
• Assigning the manuscript to an independent editor.
• Arranging additional peer review or requesting justified clarification.
• Correcting a procedural or administrative irregularity.

A successful appeal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance. It normally means that the manuscript will receive appropriate reconsideration or that the identified procedural problem will be corrected.

4.4 Finality of the Internal Appeal

A reasoned decision following an appropriate appeal assessment will normally conclude the journal's internal appeal procedure for that editorial decision.

Further reconsideration may be justified where material new evidence becomes available, a serious conflict of interest is subsequently identified, or a substantial procedural defect affected the appeal itself.

Finality of the internal appeal procedure does not prevent parties from raising legitimate research integrity concerns, seeking appropriate external review, or pursuing remedies available under applicable law.

5. Ethical Complaints

Complaints alleging research or publication misconduct are examined under the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and other applicable procedures. Relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) may inform the assessment.

5.1 Matters Requiring Ethical Assessment

Such concerns may include:

• Plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, or falsification.
• Misleading research images, datasets, or analytical results.
• Improper authorship attribution or material contribution disputes.
• Serious deficiencies in research ethics approval, informed consent, or patient privacy.
• Undisclosed competing interests or sponsor influence.
• Manipulation of peer review or editorial decision-making.
• Fabricated AI-generated evidence or other material violations of the journal's AI policy.
• Other concerns materially affecting the reliability or ethical acceptability of scholarly work.

5.2 Evidence and Procedural Fairness

The journal assesses ethical concerns using relevant evidence and proportionate procedures. A complaint, allegation, automated similarity result, or AI-detection score does not by itself establish misconduct.

Affected individuals should ordinarily have an appropriate opportunity to respond to material allegations and provide relevant information before a final determination is made.

5.3 Institutional Involvement

Where appropriate, the journal may seek assistance from a research institution, research integrity office, ethics committee, funder, or other competent body.

Institutions ordinarily have responsibility for investigating the conduct of their researchers, while the journal remains responsible for decisions concerning its own editorial process and published scholarly record.

5.4 Published Articles and Urgent Concerns

Complaints involving published articles may require a formal correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another proportionate response.

Where credible concerns raise immediate risks to patient safety, confidentiality, or public health, appropriate interim measures may be considered without waiting for the completion of every related inquiry.

Such actions are governed by the journal's Publication Ethics Policy, Corrections Policy, and Retraction Policy.

6. Reviewer and Editorial Conduct

Health Nexus expects reviewers, editors, editorial board members, and journal personnel to maintain professional conduct, scholarly independence, confidentiality, and respect for all participants in the publication process.

6.1 Reviewer Conduct

Complaints about reviewers may concern:

• Unprofessional, discriminatory, intimidating, or abusive comments.
• Material conflicts of interest not appropriately disclosed.
• Inappropriate citation requests or misuse of reviewer authority.
• Breach of manuscript confidentiality.
• Unauthorized disclosure or inappropriate use of confidential manuscript material through AI services.
• Substantially inadequate or misleading review reports.

Appropriate responses may include seeking clarification, excluding an unreliable report from editorial consideration, appointing another reviewer, issuing guidance, or discontinuing future reviewer assignments.

6.2 Complaints Concerning Editors

Complaints involving an editor should not be determined solely by the individual whose conduct or decision is challenged.

An appropriately unconflicted editor, editorial board member, or independent adviser should assess the issue according to its nature. The Editor-in-Chief may oversee the process where not personally involved or materially conflicted.

6.3 Complaints Concerning the Editor-in-Chief

Where the Editor-in-Chief is the subject of a material complaint, the concern should be referred for consideration by an appropriate unconflicted person.

The publisher may facilitate the appointment of an independent or otherwise appropriately impartial assessor when necessary, while maintaining the separation between legitimate administrative oversight and academic editorial judgment.

6.4 Complaints Concerning the Publisher

Complaints involving publisher services, administrative conduct, financial procedures, or alleged interference with editorial independence must be assessed by individuals whose relevant interests do not compromise a fair determination.

Where the concern involves a publisher action affecting a scholarly decision, an unconflicted editorial representative or suitable independent assessor should be involved. Matters requiring legal, regulatory, or institutional intervention may be referred to the relevant competent body.

7. Confidentiality

Complaints and appeals are handled with appropriate confidentiality, information security, impartiality, and respect for the legitimate interests of all parties.

7.1 Protection of Information

The journal seeks to:

• Limit disclosure of complaint information to individuals with a legitimate role in its assessment or resolution.
• Protect confidential peer review materials and unpublished research information.
• Restrict unnecessary access to sensitive personal, clinical, or institutional data.
• Manage relevant documentary evidence securely.
• Avoid unnecessary public identification of complainants, reviewers, or other affected parties.

7.2 Anonymous and Confidential Complaints

Anonymous or pseudonymous complaints may be considered where sufficiently specific, credible, and verifiable information is supplied.

Anonymity may limit the journal's ability to obtain clarification or provide detailed updates. The journal cannot guarantee absolute anonymity where disclosure is required by law, necessary for fair assessment, or essential to prevent serious harm.

7.3 Opportunity to Respond

Individuals facing material allegations should ordinarily be informed of the relevant substance of the concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond, subject to legitimate confidentiality, safety, and legal restrictions.

7.4 Protection Against Retaliation

Retaliation against an individual who raises a concern in good faith is unacceptable. The journal must not disadvantage authors, reviewers, or readers solely because they have submitted a legitimate complaint or appeal.

Deliberately fabricated allegations, harassment, threats, or misuse of the complaints process may be addressed proportionately. An unsuccessful complaint or appeal is not, by itself, evidence of bad faith.

8. Outcomes

The outcome of a complaint or appeal depends on the nature of the concern, the available evidence, the seriousness of any identified problem, and the appropriate remedy.

8.1 Editorial Outcomes

Possible outcomes include:

• Upholding, modifying, or withdrawing a previous editorial decision.
• Reopening the manuscript for independent editorial reassessment.
• Obtaining additional or replacement peer review.
• Reassigning a manuscript to an unconflicted editor.
• Correcting inaccurate correspondence or an administrative error.
• Providing a reasoned explanation where the original process and decision are upheld.

8.2 Publication Ethics and Post-Publication Outcomes

Where appropriate, the journal may:

• Request additional data, analytical evidence, or ethical documentation.
• Initiate further research integrity assessment.
• Publish a Correction or Expression of Concern.
• Issue a Retraction Notice where justified.
• Refer relevant issues to an institution, ethics committee, regulator, or other competent organization.

8.3 Administrative and Procedural Outcomes

Appropriate measures may include:

• Correcting a procedural or communication failure.
• Reviewing a fee, waiver, or invoice under the applicable financial policy.
• Providing relevant staff or reviewer guidance.
• Modifying internal procedures to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.
• Taking other justified corrective action consistent with the journal's responsibilities.

8.4 Outcome Communication

The complainant or appellant will ordinarily receive a written explanation of the outcome, subject to applicable confidentiality and legal limitations.

The journal is not required to disclose confidential reviewer identities, personnel records, legally protected information, or private institutional findings as part of its response.

9. Editorial Independence

Health Nexus maintains editorial independence in the assessment of manuscripts and the handling of complaints and appeals involving scholarly decisions.

9.1 Editorial Authority

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized and unconflicted editor is responsible for final scholarly editorial determinations, subject to applicable publication ethics and legal requirements.

Where a complaint directly concerns the Editor-in-Chief or another responsible decision-maker, an appropriate independent or unconflicted review arrangement should be established.

9.2 Publisher Responsibilities

Panorama Scholarly Group (PSG) supports appropriate complaint administration, publishing-service oversight, legal compliance, publication integrity, and implementation of justified corrective measures.

The publisher must respect independent academic editorial judgment while retaining responsibility for matters properly falling within its administrative, financial, operational, or legal authority.

9.3 Financial Neutrality

No fee is charged merely to lodge a legitimate complaint or editorial appeal. Necessary investigations, corrections, retractions, and research integrity actions must not depend on payment of an administrative service fee. Applicable refunds, invoices, APCs, and waivers are considered separately under the journal's published financial policies.

10. Contact Information

Formal complaints and appeals should be submitted in writing to the Health Nexus Editorial Office. Correspondence should identify the relevant manuscript, article, decision, or event and provide a clear description of the concern.

10.1 Suggested Email Subject Lines

To help the Editorial Office identify correspondence, the following formats are recommended:

10.2 Sensitive or Urgent Matters

Correspondence concerning urgent patient safety, serious confidentiality breaches, or other time-sensitive ethical issues should clearly indicate the urgency and provide the relevant supporting information.

Complainants should not transmit unnecessary identifiable patient information or confidential third-party records through unsecured correspondence. The Editorial Office may provide instructions for an appropriate method of submitting sensitive documentation.

10.3 Concerns Involving Editorial Leadership

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editorial officer, the complainant should identify the conflict clearly and request referral to an unconflicted person. The Editorial Office or publisher should arrange appropriate handling without requiring the implicated individual to determine the merits of the complaint.

11. Compliance with Standards

This policy is informed by internationally recognized principles of editorial accountability, procedural fairness, publication ethics, independent peer review, and responsible management of scholarly complaints and appeals.

11.1 Relevant International Guidance

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Core Practices concerning complaints and appeals, allegations of misconduct, competing interests, peer review, and post-publication integrity. COPE Core Practices
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): Recommendations concerning editorial responsibility, manuscript assessment, scholarly independence, publication ethics, and the handling of appeals and complaints. ICMJE Recommendations
• Scholarly Publishing Transparency: Recognized principles concerning transparent editorial policies, publication fees, peer review, publication ethics, and author communication.
• Applicable Legal and Institutional Standards: Relevant requirements concerning research integrity, confidentiality, data protection, copyright, professional conduct, and institutional oversight.

11.2 Relationship to Other Journal Policies

This policy operates alongside the journal's Peer Review Process, Reviewer Guidelines, Publication Ethics Policy, AI & Research Integrity Policy, Corrections Policy, Retraction Policy, and APC & Waiver Policy.

When a concern involves more than one policy, the Editorial Office may coordinate the relevant procedures while respecting the specific requirements applicable to scholarly decisions, ethical investigations, financial administration, and the correction of published records.

11.3 International Guidance and Institutional Status

References to COPE, ICMJE, and other external organizations identify the guidance informing the journal's procedures. They do not independently establish formal membership, accreditation, certification, endorsement, or indexing status.

11.4 Policy Review

Health Nexus may periodically review and update this policy to reflect developments in publication ethics, editorial governance, peer review, artificial intelligence, privacy, scholarly communication, and applicable legal requirements. Material changes should be communicated transparently and coordinated with related journal policies.