Food Systems, Safety & Sustainability (FSSS) is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, independently, respectfully, confidentially, and within a reasonable period.

Authors, reviewers, readers, research participants, institutions, funders, editors, and other affected parties may raise concerns about the journal’s editorial processes, peer review, publication ethics, published content, fees, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or implementation of journal policies.

A complaint concerns the conduct, administration, service, policy implementation, or integrity of the journal’s processes. An appeal asks the journal to reconsider a specific editorial or publication-ethics decision because a material error, procedural irregularity, overlooked evidence, or conflict of interest may have affected the outcome.

1. Purpose

This policy is intended to:

• provide an accessible procedure for raising concerns;
• ensure that complaints are assessed objectively and proportionately;
• provide a defined mechanism for reconsidering editorial decisions;
• protect editorial independence and procedural fairness;
• identify and correct failures to follow journal policy;
• address inappropriate conduct by authors, reviewers, editors, or journal personnel;
• protect confidentiality and personal information;
• maintain accurate records of significant disputes;
• support correction of the scholarly record where necessary; and
• distinguish legitimate concerns from abusive, repetitive, or unsupported communications.

2. Scope

This policy applies to complaints and appeals relating to:

• initial editorial screening;
• peer-review administration;
• reviewer conduct;
• editorial conduct;
• Editorial Board or Guest Editor conduct;
• editorial delays and communication;
• conflicts of interest and editorial recusals;
• confidentiality and data protection;
• publication-ethics investigations;
• authorship and contributorship procedures;
• ethical-oversight requirements;
• data-availability requirements;
• artificial-intelligence policy decisions;
• corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions;
• Article Processing Charges, waivers, discounts, invoices, and refunds;
• copyright, licensing, and permissions;
• discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or abusive communication;
• accessibility and journal-platform issues materially affecting a submission;
• special issues and guest-edited collections;
• published articles and associated files; and
• implementation of any other FSSS policy.

3. Matters Outside This Policy

This policy does not ordinarily provide a mechanism for:

• requiring the journal to accept a manuscript;
• obtaining additional peer review solely because the authors disagree with rejection;
• negotiating the scientific conclusions preferred by the authors;
• resolving employment, promotion, supervision, contractual, or institutional disputes;
• determining legal liability between private parties;
• adjudicating complex authorship disputes that require institutional investigation;
• requiring disclosure of reviewer identities under double-anonymous peer review;
• challenging an external database’s independent indexing decision;
• guaranteeing correction of information controlled by an external platform;
• obtaining reimbursement from an author’s institution or funder;
• removing legitimate scholarly criticism from a published review or decision letter; or
• reopening a matter indefinitely after the journal’s final internal decision.

Where another institution, regulator, court, data controller, repository, indexing service, or publisher has primary responsibility, the complainant may be directed to that organisation.

4. Definitions

Complaint

A complaint is an expression of concern or dissatisfaction relating to the journal’s administration, conduct, service, procedures, policy implementation, or integrity.

Appeal

An appeal is a formal request for reconsideration of a specific editorial, ethical, financial, or post-publication decision.

Complainant

The complainant is the individual or organisation submitting a complaint.

Appellant

The appellant is the author or other directly affected party requesting reconsideration of a decision.

Respondent

The respondent is the individual, group, or organisational unit whose action or conduct is the subject of the complaint.

Procedural Error

A procedural error is a material failure to follow the journal’s published policy or an applicable process in a way that may have affected the outcome.

5. General Principles

FSSS will seek to apply the following principles:

• Accessibility: Complaints and appeals may be submitted through the journal’s official contact channels.
• Good faith: Concerns should be raised honestly and supported by available evidence.
• Fairness: Affected parties should normally have a reasonable opportunity to respond.
• Independence: Individuals with relevant conflicts should not determine the outcome.
• Confidentiality: Information will be shared only where necessary for assessment, investigation, legal compliance, or protection of the scholarly record.
• Proportionality: The response should reflect the seriousness, evidence, and effect of the concern.
• Timeliness: Matters should be handled without unnecessary delay.
• Transparency: Decisions should explain the principal reasons for the outcome.
• No retaliation: Good-faith use of this policy must not influence unrelated editorial decisions.
• Finality: Repeated reconsideration is not required where the matter has been assessed fairly and no material new evidence is provided.

6. Who May Submit a Complaint

A complaint may be submitted by:

• an author or contributor;
• a prospective author;
• a reviewer;
• an editor or Editorial Board member;
• a reader;
• a research participant or authorised representative;
• an institution or research-integrity office;
• an ethics committee or regulatory authority;
• a funder or sponsor;
• a data repository or service provider;
• a copyright holder;
• an affected community or organisation; or
• another person with a legitimate and relevant concern.

7. Who May Submit an Appeal

An appeal may normally be submitted only by:

• the corresponding author acting with the knowledge of all authors;
• all authors jointly;
• an author directly affected by an authorship decision;
• a reviewer or editor directly affected by an ethics decision;
• a complainant directly affected by the outcome of a formal complaint;
• an institution or authorised body directly involved in the matter; or
• another party whom the journal recognises as having a legitimate right to request reconsideration.

A third party who disagrees with the scientific conclusions of a published article should normally submit a post-publication comment, letter, or evidence-based concern rather than an appeal against the original editorial decision.

8. Complaints That May Be Considered

Examples of complaints that may be considered include:

• failure to follow a published journal policy;
• unreasonable or unexplained editorial delay;
• inappropriate or abusive reviewer comments;
• editorial bias or undisclosed conflict of interest;
• breach of manuscript confidentiality;
• unauthorised disclosure of author or reviewer information;
• discriminatory or harassing conduct;
• retaliation for raising an ethical concern;
• failure to investigate a credible publication-ethics concern;
• incorrect implementation of an APC, waiver, discount, or refund policy;
• misleading or unauthorised payment requests;
• failure to correct a material production error;
• improper handling of an authorship-change request;
• inappropriate use of artificial intelligence by an editor or reviewer;
• failure to manage a special-issue conflict;
• misrepresentation of the journal’s peer-review process;
• inaccurate handling of a correction or retraction request; and
• another material failure affecting fairness, integrity, or the scholarly record.

9. Grounds for an Editorial Appeal

An appeal against an editorial decision must normally demonstrate one or more of the following:

• a material factual error in the decision letter or reviewer report;
• a substantial misunderstanding of the manuscript;
• relevant evidence was overlooked;
• a reviewer assessed the wrong manuscript or version;
• a reviewer relied on demonstrably false information;
• the journal materially failed to follow its published peer-review procedure;
• an editor or reviewer had an undisclosed competing interest;
• the decision relied substantially on abusive, discriminatory, irrelevant, or coercive comments;
• essential reviewer concerns had already been addressed but were not considered;
• a technical or administrative error affected the decision;
• a publication-ethics conclusion was based on materially incomplete or incorrect evidence; or
• another serious procedural irregularity may have altered the outcome.

10. Matters That Are Not Sufficient Grounds for Appeal

The following are not normally sufficient on their own:

• the authors disagree with the editor’s assessment of novelty or significance;
• the authors believe the manuscript is publishable in another journal;
• one reviewer recommended acceptance;
• the authors prefer a different reviewer;
• the authors disagree with reasonable methodological criticism;
• the manuscript required more revision than the authors expected;
• the journal rejected the manuscript without external review;
• the authors need the publication for graduation, promotion, funding, immigration, or another deadline;
• the authors have already paid for editing, translation, research, or other services;
• the authors are willing to pay the APC;
• the authors have published similar work elsewhere;
• the authors disagree with the journal’s scope or quality threshold;
• the authors request a different outcome without presenting new evidence; or
• the appeal merely repeats the original manuscript or response letter.

11. Appeals against Publication-Ethics Decisions

An appeal may be submitted against a decision involving:

• plagiarism or text recycling;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• fabrication or falsification;
• image or data manipulation;
• authorship or contributorship;
• peer-review manipulation;
• undisclosed competing interests;
• ethical approval or informed consent;
• animal welfare or biosafety;
• artificial-intelligence use;
• data availability or supporting evidence;
• correction, expression of concern, or retraction;
• reviewer or editor misconduct;
• restrictions on future submissions or journal participation; or
• another decision made under the Publication Ethics Policy.

The appeal must identify a factual, evidentiary, procedural, proportionality, or conflict-of-interest issue. A general denial without supporting evidence is not sufficient.

12. Appeals Relating to Fees

An author or payer may request review of a financial decision concerning:

• the amount of the APC;
• application of a waiver or discount;
• eligibility under the Waiver and Discount Policy;
• an invoice containing incorrect manuscript or payer information;
• duplicate payment;
• currency or payment-processing errors;
• a refund request;
• an unauthorised payment request; or
• failure to apply a confirmed institutional arrangement.

A financial appeal does not reopen the academic acceptance decision and must not be assessed by reviewers or editors responsible for the manuscript’s scholarly evaluation unless their input is necessary and no conflict exists.

13. Submission Deadline

An editorial appeal should normally be submitted within 30 calendar days of the relevant decision.

A complaint should be submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the complainant becomes aware of the matter.

The journal may consider a late complaint or appeal where:

• important evidence became available later;
• the complainant could not reasonably have acted earlier;
• the matter concerns ongoing misconduct or safety risk;
• the integrity of a published article may be affected;
• participant rights or public interests are involved; or
• another exceptional reason justifies consideration.

14. How to Submit a Complaint

A complaint should be submitted through the official contact information provided on the FSSS website.

The complaint should include:

• the complainant’s full name and contact information;
• the manuscript title and submission number, where applicable;
• the article DOI or complete citation, where applicable;
• a clear description of the complaint;
• the relevant dates and individuals involved;
• the journal policy or procedure believed to be relevant;
• supporting evidence or correspondence;
• the effect of the alleged problem;
• the outcome or remedy requested; and
• any confidentiality or safety concern requiring special handling.

15. How to Submit an Appeal

An appeal should contain:

• the manuscript title and submission number;
• the date and type of decision being appealed;
• the specific grounds for appeal;
• a concise explanation of the alleged factual or procedural error;
• references to the relevant decision, reviewer comments, policy, or evidence;
• new or previously overlooked information;
• the requested outcome;
• confirmation that all authors have been informed; and
• any relevant supporting documentation.

Appeals should normally be concise and focused on the alleged error. A complete rewritten manuscript should not be submitted unless the journal requests it.

16. Recommended Appeal Statement

Request for Editorial Appeal: We request reconsideration of the decision dated [date] concerning manuscript [submission number], entitled “[manuscript title].” Our appeal is based on [identify the specific factual error, procedural irregularity, overlooked evidence, or conflict of interest]. The relevant evidence is [summarise evidence]. We are not requesting reconsideration solely because we disagree with the editorial judgement. All authors have been informed of this appeal.

17. Initial Administrative Review

On receipt, the Editorial Office may assess whether the submission:

• falls within this policy;
• identifies a specific complaint or appeal;
• contains sufficient information for assessment;
• was submitted within the applicable period;
• should be handled under another journal policy;
• requires urgent action;
• involves a conflict requiring reassignment;
• concerns an active legal, institutional, or regulatory investigation;
• duplicates a matter already decided; or
• contains abusive, threatening, or unlawful material.

The journal may request clarification before beginning a substantive review.

18. Acknowledgement and Indicative Timelines

The journal aims to:

• acknowledge a complaint or appeal within five business days;
• conduct an initial assessment within 15 business days where reasonably possible;
• provide a substantive outcome or progress update within 30 business days; and
• notify the complainant or appellant where additional time is required.

These are administrative targets rather than guarantees. More time may be required where:

• multiple parties or institutions are involved;
• independent expert advice is required;
• research data, ethical records, or confidential documents must be examined;
• legal or regulatory issues arise;
• a publication-ethics investigation is ongoing;
• the relevant individuals are unavailable;
• translation is required; or
• the matter is unusually complex.

19. Urgent Complaints

The journal may prioritise a complaint where it concerns:

• an immediate risk to research participants or the public;
• serious food-safety, biosafety, or environmental risk;
• unauthorised disclosure of confidential information;
• credible threats, harassment, or discrimination;
• fraudulent payment instructions;
• active manipulation of peer review;
• unlawful publication of personal information;
• a published article that may cause serious harm if relied upon; or
• another matter requiring immediate protective action.

Urgent interim measures may be taken before the complete investigation is finished.

20. Assignment of the Complaint

A complaint should normally be assigned according to its subject:

• administrative and platform complaints may be handled by the Editorial Office;
• peer-review complaints may be handled by a senior editor;
• complaints concerning an Associate or Section Editor may be handled by the Editor-in-Chief;
• complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief may be referred to the publisher or an independent senior adviser;
• complaints concerning a Guest Editor may be handled by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor;
• financial complaints may be handled by authorised publisher personnel;
• research-integrity complaints may be handled under the Publication Ethics Policy; and
• legal, privacy, or safety complaints may be referred to appropriately qualified personnel.

21. Independence and Recusal

An individual must not control the resolution of a complaint or appeal where they:

• are the subject of the complaint;
• made the decision being appealed and independent review is reasonably available;
• are an author or contributor to the affected work;
• have a personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship with an affected party;
• have participated substantially in the disputed conduct;
• have expressed a fixed conclusion before reviewing the evidence; or
• have another interest that could compromise impartiality.

Recusal and reassignment should be documented internally.

22. Review of Editorial Appeals

An editorial appeal will normally be assessed by a senior editor who was not primarily responsible for the original decision.

The appeal reviewer may examine:

• the submitted manuscript;
• the editorial-screening record;
• reviewer reports;
• author responses;
• decision letters;
• conflict-of-interest declarations;
• relevant journal policies;
• technical or integrity-screening records; and
• the evidence submitted with the appeal.

The appeal reviewer is not required to conduct a complete new peer-review process unless additional expert assessment is considered necessary.

23. Additional Expert Review

The journal may obtain an additional opinion where:

• the appeal raises a specialist methodological issue;
• reviewer reports conflict substantially;
• the original review contains a demonstrable technical error;
• statistical, qualitative, computational, ethical, legal, or safety expertise is required;
• a reviewer conflict of interest is substantiated;
• the integrity of data or images is disputed; or
• another independent assessment would materially assist the decision.

Additional review does not guarantee reversal of the decision.

24. Possible Outcomes of an Editorial Appeal

An appeal may result in:

• the original decision being upheld;
• the decision being clarified without reopening review;
• the manuscript being returned to the original editor for reconsideration;
• the manuscript being assigned to a different editor;
• one or more reviewer reports being disregarded;
• additional peer review;
• an opportunity to submit a revised manuscript;
• reopening of editorial consideration;
• replacement of an administrative closure with an editorial decision;
• correction of a technical or procedural error; or
• another proportionate action.

Reopening consideration does not guarantee acceptance.

25. Possible Outcomes of a Complaint

A complaint may result in:

• no further action where the complaint is not substantiated;
• an explanation or clarification;
• an apology;
• correction of administrative information;
• revision of an invoice or payment record;
• reassignment of an editor or reviewer;
• removal or editing of inappropriate reviewer comments;
• additional training or policy guidance;
• modification of an internal procedure;
• formal warning to an individual;
• restriction or removal from a reviewer or editorial role;
• reopening of an ethics assessment;
• publication of a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction;
• referral to an institution, regulator, funder, or other authority;
• refund or financial adjustment under the applicable policy; or
• another proportionate remedy.

26. Decision Communication

The outcome should normally explain:

• the complaint or appeal considered;
• the information reviewed;
• the relevant policy or procedure;
• the principal findings;
• the decision reached;
• the action to be taken, where applicable;
• whether the decision is final within the journal’s internal procedure; and
• any permitted next step.

The journal may limit disclosure where complete explanation would breach reviewer confidentiality, personal privacy, legal restrictions, institutional-investigation confidentiality, or another legitimate obligation.

27. One Appeal Rule

FSSS will normally consider one formal appeal against an editorial decision.

A further request may be considered only where:

• material new evidence becomes available;
• the appeal process itself involved a significant procedural error;
• an undisclosed conflict affected the appeal decision;
• the journal materially misunderstood the grounds of appeal; or
• another exceptional circumstance justifies reconsideration.

Repeated submission of substantially the same argument does not require repeated review.

28. Complaints about Delays

Authors may enquire about a manuscript’s progress through the normal editorial channel before making a formal complaint.

A formal delay complaint should identify:

• the submission number;
• the date of submission;
• the current editorial stage;
• previous enquiries and responses;
• the duration of the delay;
• any stated reason for the delay; and
• the action requested.

A delay alone does not establish misconduct. Review duration may be affected by reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, integrity checks, revisions, special expertise, or necessary institutional consultation.

29. Complaints about Reviewer Conduct

Authors may complain where a reviewer report appears:

• abusive, insulting, discriminatory, or defamatory;
• affected by an undisclosed conflict of interest;
• intended to coerce unnecessary citations;
• based on a manuscript different from the one submitted;
• substantially generated through unauthorised artificial intelligence;
• inconsistent with confidentiality requirements;
• commercially promotional;
• personally retaliatory;
• unsupported by any scholarly reasoning; or
• otherwise inconsistent with the Peer Review Policy.

A complaint about reviewer conduct does not automatically invalidate legitimate academic criticism contained in the report.

30. Complaints about Editors

A complaint concerning an editor may involve:

• failure to disclose or manage a conflict of interest;
• discriminatory or abusive conduct;
• breach of confidentiality;
• citation coercion;
• unreasonable interference with authorship;
• preferential treatment;
• retaliation;
• improper financial influence;
• failure to follow the journal’s published procedures;
• inappropriate handling of an ethics concern; or
• another misuse of editorial authority.

The complaint should be reviewed by an individual senior to, or independent of, the editor concerned.

31. Complaints about the Editor-in-Chief

A complaint concerning the Editor-in-Chief should be submitted through the journal’s official contact channel and marked clearly for independent attention.

The publisher may assign the matter to:

• an independent senior editor;
• an appropriate member of the Editorial Board who has no relevant conflict;
• an external publication-ethics adviser;
• an independent subject or legal expert; or
• another suitably qualified individual.

The Editor-in-Chief must not control access to or determination of a complaint concerning their own conduct.

32. Complaints about the Publisher

A complaint concerning Panorama Scholarly Group or publisher personnel should identify:

• the conduct or decision concerned;
• the individuals or departments involved;
• the relationship to FSSS;
• the relevant correspondence and evidence;
• the policy or obligation believed to have been breached; and
• the remedy requested.

Where possible, the matter should be reviewed by a person who was not directly involved in the disputed action.

33. Special Issues and Guest Editors

Complaints and appeals relating to a special issue are governed by the same standards as regular journal content.

A Guest Editor must not determine a complaint or appeal concerning:

• their own manuscript;
• their own editorial conduct;
• a close collaborator’s manuscript;
• a decision in which they have a financial or institutional interest; or
• another matter where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

Final authority for special-issue complaints remains with the journal’s authorised editorial leadership and publisher.

34. Confidentiality

Complaints and appeals will be handled as confidentially as reasonably possible.

Information may be shared with:

• the individuals responsible for assessment;
• the person whose response is required;
• relevant editors or publisher personnel;
• independent advisers;
• institutions, funders, ethics bodies, or regulators;
• legal or public-safety authorities; or
• other parties where disclosure is necessary and justified.

Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where:

• fair assessment requires disclosure of the allegation;
• legal or regulatory duties apply;
• public safety or participant protection is involved;
• institutional investigation is required;
• the scholarly record must be corrected publicly; or
• the complainant has already made the matter public.

35. Anonymous Complaints

Anonymous complaints may be considered where they contain specific and verifiable information.

An anonymous complaint should identify:

• the manuscript, article, person, or process concerned;
• the specific alleged problem;
• supporting evidence;
• relevant dates or documents; and
• information permitting independent verification.

The journal may be unable to investigate an anonymous complaint that is vague, speculative, or unsupported.

36. Protection from Retaliation

No individual should be disadvantaged for raising a good-faith complaint, appeal, research-integrity concern, or safety concern.

Prohibited retaliation may include:

• adverse treatment of an unrelated submission;
• removal from a reviewer role solely for raising a legitimate concern;
• threats, intimidation, or harassment;
• disclosure of confidential personal information;
• pressure to withdraw a complaint;
• unjustified institutional or professional contact intended to punish the complainant; or
• another adverse action unrelated to the merits of the complaint.

This protection does not prevent proportionate action against knowingly false, malicious, threatening, or abusive conduct.

37. Respectful Communication

All parties must communicate professionally.

Correspondence must not contain:

• personal attacks;
• discriminatory or hateful language;
• defamatory allegations presented as established facts;
• threats of violence or unlawful conduct;
• harassment of editors, reviewers, authors, or staff;
• publication of private contact information;
• attempts to intimidate or bribe decision-makers;
• mass messaging intended to disrupt journal operations; or
• repeated abusive communications after a final response.

The journal may require future communication to occur through a designated contact person or may stop responding to abusive messages after providing an appropriate warning.

38. Repetitive, Vexatious, or Bad-Faith Complaints

FSSS may limit or close correspondence where a complaint:

• has already been assessed fully;
• provides no material new evidence;
• repeats substantially identical allegations;
• is clearly intended to harass or intimidate;
• demands an outcome outside the journal’s authority;
• contains knowingly false information;
• misuses the process to influence an unrelated editorial decision;
• requires disclosure prohibited by confidentiality obligations; or
• otherwise constitutes an abuse of the complaints procedure.

A complaint should not be classified as vexatious merely because it is persistent, critical, inconvenient, or ultimately unsubstantiated.

39. Evidence and Record Preservation

The journal may preserve:

• complaint and appeal correspondence;
• submission and editorial records;
• reviewer reports;
• decision letters;
• conflict-of-interest declarations;
• payment and invoice records;
• technical and security logs;
• data, images, code, or ethics documents supplied for assessment;
• institutional correspondence;
• independent expert opinions;
• investigation records; and
• final decisions and remedial actions.

Records may be retained for legitimate editorial, auditing, legal, security, preservation, and research-integrity purposes.

40. Data Protection

Personal information submitted through a complaint or appeal will be processed only for legitimate purposes connected with:

• assessment and investigation;
• communication with affected parties;
• management of editorial and publication records;
• legal and regulatory compliance;
• security and fraud prevention;
• protection of participants and the public;
• correction of the scholarly record; and
• defence or exercise of legal rights.

Complainants should avoid submitting unnecessary sensitive personal information.

41. Interaction with Institutional Investigations

The journal may refer a matter to an institution, funder, ethics body, regulator, professional organisation, repository, or another journal where that organisation has relevant authority or evidence.

The journal may:

• pause its internal assessment pending an external investigation;
• continue an editorial assessment independently;
• request an investigation report or summary;
• publish an expression of concern while an investigation is pending;
• take urgent action before an external process is completed; or
• reach an editorial decision based on the reliability of the scholarly record.

Institutional and editorial decisions may differ because they address different responsibilities and standards.

42. Interaction with Legal Proceedings

The existence of threatened or active legal proceedings does not automatically prevent editorial assessment.

The journal may:

• seek legal advice;
• limit disclosure of confidential information;
• pause part of the process where legally necessary;
• preserve relevant records;
• continue action necessary to protect readers or the scholarly record; and
• comply with lawful orders from competent authorities.

43. Publication of Complaint Outcomes

Complaint and appeal outcomes are not normally published unless public notice is necessary to:

• correct an article;
• issue an expression of concern;
• retract an article;
• correct authorship or competing-interest information;
• notify readers of a significant editorial error;
• explain a material change to journal policy or procedure; or
• protect the scholarly record or public interest.

Published notices should avoid unnecessary personal information and unsupported allegations.

44. External Escalation

After the journal’s internal procedure has been completed, a complainant may consider contacting an appropriate external organisation where that organisation has jurisdiction or responsibility.

Depending on the subject, this may include:

• the relevant author or reviewer institution;
• a research-integrity office;
• an ethics committee or institutional review board;
• a funder or sponsor;
• a data-protection or regulatory authority;
• a professional body;
• a copyright holder or repository;
• a consumer or payment-service dispute process;
• a court or other competent legal authority; or
• another appropriate oversight body.

Reference to an external organisation does not mean that FSSS can guarantee that the organisation will accept or resolve the complaint.

45. No Effect on Unrelated Editorial Decisions

A complaint or appeal must not affect the assessment of another manuscript submitted by the same author, institution, reviewer, or complainant.

Related submissions may nevertheless be examined where the complaint provides credible evidence that:

• the same data or images were reused improperly;
• peer-review manipulation affected multiple manuscripts;
• authorship or identity fraud is systematic;
• a paper mill or third-party agency is involved;
• ethical approval was fabricated across multiple studies;
• the same conflict of interest affects several decisions; or
• another integrity concern extends beyond the original matter.

46. No Fees for Complaints or Appeals

FSSS does not charge a fee for submitting a complaint or appeal.

Submission of a complaint or appeal does not require payment of the Article Processing Charge and must not be conditioned on payment of an invoice.

The journal is not responsible for costs independently incurred by a complainant or appellant, including legal advice, translation, professional consultation, or institutional administration.

47. Finality of Internal Decisions

After an appeal or escalated complaint has been assessed by an appropriately independent individual, the resulting decision will normally be treated as the journal’s final internal decision.

The journal may reopen the matter where:

• substantial new evidence emerges;
• fraud or concealment affected the previous assessment;
• an external authority provides relevant findings;
• a serious safety or ethical risk becomes apparent;
• the previous decision contains a material factual error; or
• correction of the scholarly record requires further action.

48. Recommended Complaint Template

Formal Complaint: I am submitting a complaint concerning [manuscript, article, process, individual, invoice, or policy]. The relevant reference number or DOI is [number]. The complaint concerns [describe the conduct or procedural issue]. The relevant events occurred on [dates]. The supporting evidence is [identify documents or correspondence]. I believe the relevant policy or procedure is [identify policy where possible]. The outcome requested is [state requested remedy].

49. Final Complaint Checklist

Before submitting a complaint, the complainant should confirm that:

• the concern falls within the journal’s responsibility;
• the manuscript number, DOI, or relevant reference is included;
• the allegation is stated clearly;
• relevant dates and individuals are identified;
• supporting evidence is included;
• allegations are distinguished from established facts;
• the requested outcome is stated;
• unnecessary personal or sensitive information has been removed;
• the communication is professional;
• any urgent safety or confidentiality issue is identified; and
• the information supplied is accurate to the best of the complainant’s knowledge.

50. Final Appeal Checklist

Before submitting an appeal, the appellant should confirm that:

• the specific decision being appealed is identified;
• the appeal is submitted within the normal 30-day period;
• the appeal identifies a material factual or procedural issue;
• the appeal does not rely solely on disagreement with editorial judgement;
• relevant evidence is provided;
• the appeal addresses the reasons in the original decision;
• all authors have been informed;
• no confidential reviewer identity has been demanded;
• the requested outcome is clear and proportionate;
• the appeal is concise and professional; and
• the authors understand that reconsideration does not guarantee acceptance.

51. Standards Informing This Policy

This policy is informed by internationally recognised principles concerning complaints, appeals, editorial accountability, and responsible scholarly publishing, including:

• Committee on Publication Ethics Guidance;
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;
• DOAJ Principles of Transparency and Best Practice; and
• ICMJE Recommendations.

Reference to an external organisation means that its guidance informs this policy. It does not imply membership, endorsement, certification, or formal affiliation unless this is stated separately and independently verifiable.

52. Contact

Complaints and appeals should be submitted to the FSSS Editorial Office through the official contact information provided on the journal website.

The subject line should identify the type of correspondence:

• Formal Complaint – [submission number or DOI]; or
• Editorial Appeal – [submission number].

Correspondence should include:

• the complainant’s or appellant’s full name;
• institutional affiliation where relevant;
• contact information;
• the manuscript title;
• the submission number or DOI;
• a concise description of the matter;
• the relevant evidence;
• the outcome requested; and
• any confidentiality, privacy, or safety concern requiring special handling.