1. Purpose and Scope
AMG Transcend Association is committed to providing fair, transparent, proportionate, and appropriately independent mechanisms for raising concerns about editorial and publishing processes and for appealing eligible editorial decisions.
This policy establishes publisher-level principles for complaints and appeals across the journals published by AMG Transcend Association.
It applies to authors, reviewers, readers, editors, Editorial Board members, institutions, and other individuals or organizations with a legitimate concern relating to a journal or its editorial and publishing activities.
Individual journals may establish additional procedural requirements consistent with these principles.
2. Complaints and Appeals Are Distinct
A complaint concerns the conduct, administration, fairness, integrity, or operation of an editorial or publishing process.
An appeal is a request by an author for reconsideration of a specific editorial decision concerning their manuscript or, where applicable, another formal editorial action affecting their work.
A complaint must not automatically be treated as an appeal.
An appeal must not be used as a substitute for raising allegations of research misconduct, publication-ethics violations, confidentiality breaches, competing interests, inappropriate influence, or other matters requiring assessment under another policy.
Where a submission raises issues falling under several policies, the journal or publisher may address each aspect through the procedure appropriate to that issue.
3. Grounds for an Editorial Appeal
Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they can identify a specific and material reason why reconsideration may be justified.
Relevant grounds may include:
- a material factual error affecting the editorial assessment;
- a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript or its findings;
- a material procedural irregularity;
- evidence that an applicable journal policy was not followed;
- a relevant competing interest that may have materially affected the editorial process;
- evidence that material information relevant to the decision was overlooked or incorrectly interpreted;
- another specific circumstance capable of materially affecting the fairness, integrity, or validity of the decision.
An appeal must explain clearly which aspect of the decision is being challenged and provide relevant reasoning, evidence, or supporting information.
4. Disagreement with Editorial Judgment
An appeal is not intended to provide repeated reconsideration merely because an author disagrees with reviewer comments or an editor’s scientific or scholarly judgment.
Differences of scholarly opinion may legitimately arise during peer review and editorial assessment.
An appeal based on disagreement must identify a specific factual, procedural, ethical, methodological, or interpretative issue capable of materially affecting the decision.
The existence of supportive reviewer comments, disagreement between reviewers, or an author’s belief that the manuscript merits publication does not by itself require reversal or reconsideration of an editorial decision.
5. Submission of an Appeal
Appeals must be submitted through the contact channel identified by the relevant journal.
An appeal should normally include:
- the manuscript title and identification number;
- the editorial decision being appealed;
- a concise explanation of the grounds for the appeal;
- identification of the specific factual, procedural, ethical, methodological, or interpretative issue concerned;
- relevant supporting information where appropriate.
Appeals should focus on substantive issues rather than repeat the full content of previous correspondence.
Journals may establish reasonable procedural requirements or timeframes for appeals, provided that these requirements are publicly communicated and applied consistently.
6. Independent Assessment of Appeals
An appeal must be assessed by an appropriately qualified editor or other appropriately qualified individual who:
- was not materially responsible for the original decision;
- was not materially involved in the disputed editorial process; and
- does not have a relevant competing interest that could reasonably compromise, or appear to compromise, their impartiality.
The assessment may involve:
- examination of the manuscript and relevant editorial record;
- review of the grounds stated by the author;
- consideration of relevant peer-review reports and editorial correspondence;
- consultation with another appropriately qualified and independent editor or expert;
- additional scientific, methodological, statistical, ethical, or peer-review assessment where necessary;
- clarification from the original handling editor where this does not compromise the independence of the appeal assessment.
An appeal does not automatically require a new round of external peer review.
The person or persons responsible for the appeal must have sufficient independence and authority to determine the appropriate outcome of the appeal process.
7. Outcomes of an Appeal
Following assessment, an appeal may result in:
- the original decision being upheld;
- reconsideration by an independent editor;
- additional scientific, methodological, statistical, or ethical assessment;
- additional peer review;
- correction of a material procedural error;
- reopening of editorial consideration;
- another appropriate action justified by the circumstances.
Reconsideration or reopening of editorial consideration does not imply acceptance for publication.
Where an appeal results in renewed editorial evaluation, the manuscript remains subject to the journal’s normal scientific, ethical, peer-review, and editorial standards.
The outcome of a properly completed appeal will ordinarily constitute the journal’s final decision on that appeal.
New and material evidence concerning publication ethics, research integrity, competing interests, confidentiality, or another distinct matter may nevertheless be considered separately under the applicable policy.
8. Complaints
Complaints may concern matters including:
- editorial conduct;
- peer-review conduct;
- inappropriate editorial delay or administrative handling;
- failure to follow an applicable journal or publisher policy;
- confidentiality or privacy;
- competing interests;
- inappropriate communication or professional conduct;
- alleged interference with editorial independence;
- inappropriate commercial, financial, institutional, or organizational influence;
- discrimination or unfair treatment;
- handling of corrections, retractions, Expressions of Concern, or other post-publication matters;
- journal or publisher communications;
- technical or administrative processes where they materially affect publication;
- other matters relating to the journal’s or publisher’s responsibilities.
A complaint must identify the issue with sufficient clarity to permit meaningful assessment.
Where a complaint principally concerns research misconduct, publication ethics, or the integrity of submitted or published work, it may be assessed under the Publication Ethics and Research Integrity or another applicable policy rather than solely under this complaints procedure.
9. Submission and Initial Assessment of Complaints
Complaints may be submitted through the contact channels published by the relevant journal or AMG Transcend Association.
A complaint should, where possible, include:
- the name and contact information of the complainant;
- the manuscript, article, communication, individual, or process concerned;
- a clear description of the issue;
- relevant dates or correspondence;
- supporting information necessary to understand the complaint.
The journal or publisher may request clarification where a complaint is too general, incomplete, or ambiguous to permit meaningful assessment.
Complaints should be acknowledged and handled within a reasonable timeframe.
Where resolution requires substantial assessment, expert advice, institutional cooperation, legal review, or other external information, an appropriate update should be provided to the complainant where practicable and consistent with applicable confidentiality requirements.
10. Anonymous and Confidential Concerns
A concern must not be disregarded solely because it is submitted anonymously or because the complainant requests confidentiality.
Anonymous or confidential complaints must be assessed according to the specificity, credibility, seriousness, relevance, and verifiability of the information provided.
Where possible, the identity of a complainant requesting confidentiality should be protected from unnecessary disclosure.
Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is reasonably necessary for fair assessment, legal obligations, institutional cooperation, protection of affected individuals, due process, or other legitimate purposes.
Anonymous allegations unsupported by sufficient specific or verifiable information may be impossible to assess meaningfully.
11. Fairness and Opportunity to Respond
Complaints concerning the conduct of an identifiable author, reviewer, editor, staff member, publisher representative, or other individual must be handled fairly and impartially.
Where a substantive allegation requires assessment, the individual concerned should normally be given an appropriate opportunity to respond before an adverse conclusion is reached.
The information provided to that individual should be sufficient to permit a meaningful response while respecting legitimate confidentiality, privacy, legal, and ethical considerations.
An allegation must not be treated as an established fact before appropriate assessment.
The journal or publisher must distinguish, where relevant, between:
- scholarly disagreement;
- procedural error;
- poor communication;
- inappropriate professional conduct;
- publication-ethics concerns;
- research misconduct requiring external investigative authority.
12. Complaints Involving Editors or Editorial Personnel
Where a complaint concerns an editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer, or member of editorial or publishing personnel, the matter must not be controlled by the individual whose conduct is under review.
The complaint must be assigned to another appropriately qualified and impartial individual who:
- was not materially involved in the disputed matter;
- has no relevant competing interest;
- has sufficient authority to assess the complaint independently.
Where the complaint concerns an Editor-in-Chief, assessment must be conducted by another appropriately independent and qualified individual with sufficient authority to review the matter.
Publisher-level oversight may address procedural compliance, ethical conduct, competing interests, governance, confidentiality, and compliance with publisher policies, but must not be used to replace independent scientific editorial judgment with an administrative, financial, strategic, or commercial preference.
13. Complaints and Appeals Involving Dual Publisher and Editorial Roles
Where the same individual holds both publisher-level and journal-level responsibilities, the combination of roles must not prevent independent assessment of a complaint or appeal.
In particular, the President of AMG Transcend Association also serves as Editor-in-Chief of Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry.
Where a complaint, appeal, or related concern involves that individual’s own conduct, editorial decision, competing interest, exercise of authority, or another matter in which their impartiality could reasonably be questioned, the individual must not determine, control, or improperly influence the outcome.
The matter must be assigned to another appropriately qualified and impartial editor or other independent individual who:
- was not materially involved in the disputed matter;
- has no relevant competing interest;
- has sufficient independence and authority to assess the matter.
Recusal must involve genuine removal from substantive assessment, deliberation, and decision-making concerning the complaint or appeal.
The recused individual must not use publisher-level, editorial, administrative, or organizational authority to direct or reverse the independent outcome.
14. Complaints About the Publisher
Complaints concerning AMG Transcend Association itself, its publishing practices, publisher-level policies, commercial relationships, governance, administration, or conduct must be assessed separately from any individual manuscript decision where appropriate.
Where a complaint concerns the actions of a publisher representative who would ordinarily participate in reviewing such matters, that individual must not control or improperly influence the assessment.
Where necessary, independent editorial, ethical, professional, institutional, technical, or legal advice may be sought.
Publisher-level review of a complaint must respect the editorial independence of individual journals and must not be used to reverse an independent scientific decision for administrative, commercial, reputational, financial, or other non-scholarly reasons.
15. Complaints Concerning Reviewers
Complaints concerning reviewer conduct may include allegations of:
- breach of confidentiality;
- undisclosed competing interests;
- inappropriate use of privileged manuscript information;
- abusive, discriminatory, or unprofessional comments;
- coercive or inappropriate citation requests;
- misuse of artificial intelligence or external systems contrary to confidentiality requirements;
- impersonation or false reviewer identity;
- manipulation of peer review;
- other conduct compromising the integrity or independence of peer review.
The journal may examine relevant peer-review and editorial records and may request clarification or supporting information where appropriate.
Where a concern is substantiated, proportionate action may include:
- excluding the reviewer from further involvement in the manuscript;
- discontinuing or restricting future reviewer invitations;
- reassessing an affected editorial or peer-review process;
- seeking additional independent review;
- another corrective action appropriate to the circumstances.
Serious concerns may also be addressed under the Peer Review Principles, Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests, or Publication Ethics and Research Integrity policies.
16. Complaints Concerning Editorial Decisions
A complaint about the manner in which an editorial decision was reached is distinct from an appeal seeking reconsideration of the scientific or scholarly decision itself.
Where a complaint identifies a potential procedural irregularity, competing interest, inappropriate influence, confidentiality breach, discriminatory treatment, or another problem capable of materially affecting the integrity of the decision, the journal may examine the relevant editorial process.
Where a material procedural or ethical defect is established, appropriate action may include independent reassessment of the manuscript or editorial process.
A procedural complaint does not authorize the publisher, complainant, author, or another interested party to dictate the scientific outcome of that reassessment.
Any renewed scientific assessment must remain under appropriately independent editorial authority.
17. Good-Faith Complaints and Professional Conduct
Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other stakeholders may raise legitimate concerns without inappropriate disadvantage merely because they have made a good-faith complaint or appeal.
Complaints and appeals should be made responsibly and should focus on the substantive issue.
Threatening, abusive, discriminatory, knowingly false, or persistently repetitive communications that provide no materially new information may be managed proportionately.
The journal or publisher may conclude correspondence where:
- the matter has been appropriately assessed;
- an outcome has been communicated;
- further communications provide no substantive new evidence or issue requiring assessment.
Closure of repetitive correspondence must not prevent consideration of genuinely new and material information received later.
18. Research Integrity and Institutional Referral
A complaint or appeal may reveal a matter requiring assessment under another policy.
Where concerns involve possible fabrication, falsification, serious ethical violations, inappropriate authorship, peer-review manipulation, or another issue requiring investigative authority beyond the journal’s reasonable capacity, the matter may be referred to an appropriate institution, ethics body, regulator, funder, research organization, or other competent authority.
The journal remains responsible for determining the appropriate editorial status of manuscripts and published articles within its own scholarly record.
Institutional disciplinary decisions, formal findings of research misconduct, and journal editorial decisions serve different purposes and must not automatically be treated as interchangeable.
Editorial action may be taken independently where sufficient evidence exists to determine the appropriate status of a manuscript or publication.
19. Confidentiality and Records
Complaints, appeals, responses, supporting evidence, deliberations, and related editorial records must be handled with appropriate confidentiality.
Information should be shared only with individuals who require it for legitimate assessment, editorial, governance, ethical, institutional, technical, or legal purposes.
Relevant records must be retained appropriately to document:
- the concern or appeal raised;
- the assessment undertaken;
- relevant evidence considered;
- competing interests and recusals;
- the basis of the outcome;
- any corrective or follow-up action taken.
Record retention must be consistent with applicable legal, privacy, data-protection, confidentiality, and institutional requirements.
Confidentiality must not be used to conceal a material problem that requires correction, disclosure, or other appropriate action concerning the public scholarly record.
20. Outcomes of Complaints
Depending on the nature and findings of a complaint, appropriate action may include:
- explanation or clarification;
- correction of an administrative or procedural problem;
- improvement of editorial or publishing processes;
- independent reassessment;
- reassignment of editorial responsibility;
- management of a competing interest;
- corrective action concerning reviewer or editorial conduct;
- referral under another publisher or journal policy;
- Correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other post-publication action where appropriate;
- institutional or regulatory referral;
- no further action where the complaint is not substantiated.
The response must be fair and proportionate to the nature, seriousness, evidence, and effect of the issue.
A complainant’s requested outcome does not determine the action that the journal or publisher must take.
21. Relationship with Other Policies
This policy should be read together with applicable AMG Transcend Association and journal policies concerning:
- Editorial Independence and Governance
- Peer Review Principles
- Publication Ethics and Research Integrity
- Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests
- Authorship and Contributor Responsibilities
- Research Ethics
- Data Integrity and Reproducibility
- AI and Generative Tools
- Advertising, Sponsorship and Commercial Activities
- Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern