GRHAS provides a route for authors and readers to question editorial decisions, procedures and the handling of published work. A clear case identifies the decision or incident, explains the concern and supplies evidence that can be assessed.

Appealing an editorial decision

Send the submission identifier, decision date and a reasoned statement to [email protected]. Identify a material factual error, misunderstanding, overlooked evidence or procedural defect and explain its effect on the outcome. Refer to the decision letter, manuscript and reports where relevant.

The appeal is considered by an editor independent of the disputed decision where practicable. The assessment may uphold the decision, seek further expert advice or reopen consideration. The reviewing editor communicates the outcome and reasons in writing.

Complaining about process or conduct

Identify the submission, article or incident and the procedure or conduct at issue. Describe the outcome sought and attach relevant correspondence or other documents. Keep the account focused on the points requiring a response.

The office directs the complaint to an appropriate editor or publisher representative without a relevant conflict. Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief are referred to the publisher or an independent editorial representative. The person handling the case obtains the relevant records and responses before determining remedial action.

Research-integrity concerns

A concern about plagiarism, evidence, consent or other research conduct is considered under Publication Ethics. Supply the article citation and precise evidence, such as matching source passages or an identified discrepancy.

A publication response may involve correction, an expression of concern or retraction, depending on the evidence and its effect on the work.

Outcome and further correspondence

The journal explains its response to the substantive matter. If a material point remains unresolved, identify that point and provide new evidence or a specific explanation of the remaining problem.

Editorial correspondence and third-party material should be handled with appropriate confidentiality. The aim is an evidence-based assessment and a documented resolution.