Complaints and Appeals

1. Purpose and Scope

AMG Transcend Association is committed to providing fair, transparent, and appropriately independent mechanisms for raising concerns about editorial 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 be treated automatically as an appeal, and an appeal must not be used as a substitute for raising allegations of misconduct, confidentiality breaches, conflicts of interest, or other ethical concerns.

Where a submission raises issues falling under several policies, the journal 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 significant conflict of interest that may have affected the editorial process;
• evidence that material information relevant to the decision was overlooked or incorrectly interpreted; or
• another specific circumstance capable of materially affecting the fairness or validity of the decision.

An appeal should explain clearly which part of the decision is being challenged and provide relevant reasoning or evidence.

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 judgment.

Differences of scholarly opinion may legitimately arise during peer review.

An appeal based primarily on disagreement should identify a specific factual, procedural, ethical, or interpretative problem capable of materially affecting the decision.

The existence of supportive reviewer comments, disagreement between reviewers, or the author’s belief that the manuscript merits publication does not by itself require reversal of an editorial decision.

5. Submission of an Appeal

Appeals should be submitted through the contact channel identified by the relevant journal and 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, or interpretative issue concerned; and
• 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 are publicly communicated and applied consistently.

6. Independent Assessment of Appeals

An appeal should be assessed by an appropriately qualified editor or other editorial authority who was not materially responsible for the original decision, where reasonably practicable.

The person reviewing the appeal must not have a competing interest that could reasonably compromise their impartiality.

The assessment may involve:

• examination of the manuscript and editorial record;
• review of the grounds stated by the author;
• consideration of relevant peer-review reports and editorial correspondence;
• consultation with another independent editor;
• additional expert or peer review where necessary; or
• 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.

7. Outcomes of an Appeal

Following assessment, an appeal may result in:

• the original decision being upheld;
• reconsideration by an independent editor;
• additional scientific or methodological assessment;
• additional peer review;
• correction of a material procedural error;
• reopening of editorial consideration; or
• another appropriate action justified by the circumstances.

Reconsideration 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, and editorial standards.

The outcome of a properly completed appeal will ordinarily constitute the journal’s final decision on that appeal. New material evidence concerning publication ethics, research integrity, conflicts of interest, or another distinct matter may nevertheless be considered under the relevant 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 policy;
• confidentiality or privacy;
• competing interests;
• inappropriate communication or professional conduct;
• alleged interference with editorial independence;
• inappropriate commercial or institutional influence;
• discrimination or unfair treatment;
• handling of corrections, retractions, or other post-publication matters;
• journal or publisher communications;
• technical or administrative processes where they materially affect publication; or
• other matters relating to the journal’s or publisher’s responsibilities.

A complaint should identify the issue sufficiently clearly to permit meaningful assessment.

Where a complaint concerns research misconduct or the integrity of a submitted or published work, it may be assessed under the Publication Ethics and Research Integrity 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, or process concerned;
• a clear description of the issue;
• relevant dates or correspondence; and
• supporting information necessary to understand the complaint.

The journal or publisher may request clarification where a complaint is too general to permit meaningful assessment.

Complaints should be acknowledged and handled within a reasonable timeframe. Where resolution requires substantial investigation, expert assessment, institutional cooperation, or other external information, the complainant should receive an appropriate update where practicable.

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 should be assessed according to the specificity, credibility, seriousness, 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 necessary for fair assessment, legal obligations, institutional cooperation, protection of affected individuals, or other legitimate reasons.

Anonymous allegations unsupported by sufficient information may be impossible to investigate meaningfully.

11. Fairness and Opportunity to Respond

Complaints concerning the conduct of an identifiable author, reviewer, editor, staff member, or other individual must be handled fairly.

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 and privacy considerations.

An allegation must not be treated as an established fact before appropriate assessment.

The journal or publisher must distinguish between:

• disagreement;
• procedural error;
• poor communication;
• professional misconduct;
• publication-ethics concerns; and
• 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 staff, the matter must not be controlled by the individual whose conduct is under review.

The complaint should be assigned to another appropriately qualified and impartial person who was not materially involved in the matter and does not have a relevant competing interest.

Where the complaint concerns an Editor-in-Chief, assessment should be conducted by another appropriately independent individual with sufficient authority to review the matter.

Publisher-level oversight may address procedural compliance, ethical conduct, conflicts of interest, and governance, but must not be used to replace independent scientific editorial judgment with an administrative or commercial preference.

13. Complaints 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 review 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, or exercise of authority, he must not determine the outcome of the review.

The matter must be assigned to another appropriately qualified and impartial individual who was not involved in the disputed matter and has sufficient independence to assess it.

Recusal must involve genuine removal from substantive assessment and decision-making concerning the complaint or appeal.

14. Complaints About the Publisher

Complaints concerning AMG Transcend Association itself, its publishing practices, publisher-level policies, commercial relationships, governance, or conduct must be assessed separately from any individual manuscript decision where appropriate.

Where the complaint concerns the actions of a publisher representative who would ordinarily participate in reviewing such matters, that person must not control the assessment.

Where necessary, independent editorial, ethical, professional, institutional, or legal advice may be sought.

Publisher-level review of a complaint must respect the editorial independence of the journals and must not be used to reverse an individual scientific decision for 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; or
• other conduct compromising the integrity of peer review.

The journal may examine relevant peer-review and editorial records and may request clarification where appropriate.

Where a concern is substantiated, actions may include excluding the reviewer from further involvement in the manuscript, discontinuing future reviewer invitations, reassessing affected editorial decisions, or taking other proportionate action.

Serious matters may also be addressed under the Peer Review Principles 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 decision itself.

Where a complaint identifies a potential procedural irregularity, conflict of interest, inappropriate influence, confidentiality breach, or other problem capable of affecting the integrity of the decision, the journal may examine the relevant editorial process.

If a material defect is established, appropriate action may include independent reassessment of the manuscript.

A procedural complaint does not authorize the publisher or complainant to dictate the scientific outcome of that reassessment.

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 add no materially new information may be managed proportionately.

The journal or publisher may conclude correspondence where a matter has been fully assessed and repeated communications provide no substantive new evidence.

Closure of repetitive correspondence must not prevent consideration of genuinely new and material information.

18. Research Integrity and Institutional Referral

A complaint or appeal may reveal a matter that requires action under another policy.

Where concerns involve possible fabrication, falsification, serious ethical violations, authorship misconduct, peer-review manipulation, or another issue requiring investigative authority beyond the journal, the matter may be referred to an appropriate institution, ethics body, regulator, funder, or other organization.

The journal remains responsible for determining the appropriate status of manuscripts and published articles within its own scholarly record.

Institutional disciplinary decisions and journal editorial decisions serve different purposes and must not automatically be treated as interchangeable.

19. Confidentiality and Records

Complaints, appeals, responses, supporting evidence, and related editorial records must be handled with appropriate confidentiality.

Information should be shared only with individuals who require it for legitimate assessment, governance, ethical, legal, or institutional purposes.

Relevant records should be retained sufficiently to document:

• the concern raised;
• the assessment undertaken;
• relevant conflicts and recusals;
• the basis of the outcome; and
• any corrective action taken.

Confidentiality must not be used to conceal a material problem that requires correction of 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 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 or other post-publication action;
• institutional referral where appropriate; or
• no further action where the complaint is not substantiated.

The response must be proportionate to the nature and seriousness 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; and
• Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern.

Individual journals may maintain additional complaints and appeals procedures consistent with these principles.