Complaints and Appeals

1. Scope of Complaints and Appeals

MPR accepts complaints and appeals from authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, and other relevant stakeholders concerning the journal's editorial and publication activities.

The following matters fall within the scope of this policy:

• Editorial decisions: Alleged factual errors, procedural irregularities, or significant misunderstandings affecting manuscript decisions.
• Peer-review procedures: Concerns about reviewer conduct, inappropriate comments, conflicts of interest, reviewer selection, confidentiality, or irregularities in the review process.
• Research misconduct: Allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, redundant publication, or unethical research practices.
• Authorship disputes: Concerns involving unauthorized authorship, omitted contributors, or inappropriate changes in author attribution.
• Published content: Substantiated concerns about errors, unreliable findings, ethical violations, or the need for post-publication correction.
• Editorial conduct: Alleged bias, discrimination, conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, or inappropriate editorial behavior.
• Publication administration: Concerns about journal policies, publication fees, unreasonable processing delays, or failures in communication.

2. Submission of a Complaint or Appeal

Complaints and appeals must be submitted in writing to the MPR Editorial Office through the journal's official correspondence channel.

• Name and contact information of the complainant, where available.
• Manuscript identification number, article title, DOI, or other relevant publication reference.
• A clear and specific description of the complaint or grounds for appeal.
• Relevant supporting evidence, documents, or editorial correspondence.
• A statement explaining the complainant's relationship to the manuscript, article, or journal.
• The outcome or corrective action being requested, where applicable.

Anonymous concerns may be considered where sufficient information and credible supporting evidence are provided. However, anonymity may limit the journal's ability to request clarification or communicate the outcome.

The Editorial Office may request additional information when the submitted complaint is incomplete or insufficiently specific for meaningful assessment.

3. Acknowledgment and Initial Assessment

The Editorial Office aims to acknowledge receipt of a written complaint or appeal within five working days, provided that valid contact details are available.

Following acknowledgment, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editorial representative conducts an initial assessment to determine:

• Whether the complaint falls within the journal's editorial or publication responsibilities.
• Whether sufficient information and supporting evidence have been provided.
• Whether the concern requires clarification, procedural review, or investigation.
• Whether the matter involves a potential conflict of interest requiring independent handling.
• Whether the concern should be referred to another responsible authority, institution, or publisher.

4. Review and Investigation Procedures

Complaints requiring further examination are investigated fairly, objectively, and confidentially. The nature and extent of an investigation depend on the seriousness of the concern and the information available.

Where the complaint involves the conduct or decision of an editor, reviewer, or Editorial Board member, the case should, where appropriate, be assigned to another qualified editor or independent individual who was not materially involved in the disputed matter.

When allegations involve potential research misconduct requiring formal institutional investigation, the journal may communicate with the relevant research institution or responsible authority. Such cooperation does not replace the journal's own responsibility to protect the integrity of its publication processes and scholarly record.

5. Outcome and Communication

The journal aims to conclude the assessment of complaints and appeals within six weeks whenever reasonably possible. Complex cases involving institutional investigations, additional evidence, multiple parties, or independent expert review may require more time.

Where an investigation cannot reasonably be completed within the expected period, the Editorial Office should communicate an appropriate status update to the complainant, subject to confidentiality and the information available.

The complainant will be informed in writing of the outcome to the extent appropriate. Information concerning confidential reviewer identities, private research data, personnel matters, or ongoing investigations may be withheld when disclosure would breach legal, ethical, or confidentiality obligations.

Where a complaint is substantiated, the journal will take proportionate action consistent with the seriousness of the concern and its responsibilities for scholarly publishing.

6. Editorial Appeals and Escalation

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was affected by a material factual error, procedural irregularity, significant misunderstanding, or relevant evidence not adequately considered may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration.

An appeal should clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting documentation where appropriate. Mere disagreement with an editorial decision, without substantive grounds, is not sufficient to warrant a reversal.

If a complaint cannot be resolved through the initial editorial process, it may be referred to a senior Editorial Board member or the publisher for further consideration, especially where the original matter involves the Editor-in-Chief or another person responsible for the decision.

Relevant COPE guidance may be consulted in addressing complex or unresolved ethical concerns. COPE is not a general appellate authority for individual manuscript decisions; any direct referral to COPE is subject to its eligibility and procedural requirements.

7. Confidentiality, Fair Treatment and Protection

Complaints and appeals are handled with due regard for confidentiality, fairness, impartiality, and the legitimate interests of all parties involved.

• Complaint information is shared only with individuals who have a legitimate role in handling the matter.
• Reviewers' identities and confidential peer-review communications remain protected in accordance with the journal's review policy.
• Relevant parties are ordinarily provided an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantiated concerns concerning their conduct or work.
• Editors and other individuals with relevant conflicts of interest must not improperly influence the investigation or its outcome.
• Complainants acting in good faith should not experience retaliation for raising legitimate research-integrity or editorial concerns.
• Personal data and supporting documentation must be handled in accordance with applicable privacy and confidentiality requirements.
• Public disclosure of investigation details is limited to information necessary or appropriate for legal, ethical, or scholarly-record purposes.

8. Record-Keeping and Policy Improvement

MPR seeks to maintain appropriate records of complaints, appeals, relevant correspondence, investigations, editorial findings, decisions, and corrective actions.

These records support accountability, procedural consistency, and the responsible handling of future ethical concerns. Access to complaint and investigation records is restricted to authorized individuals and governed by applicable confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

Where appropriate, anonymized or aggregated information from resolved complaints may be used to review editorial practices, identify recurring procedural issues, improve communication, and strengthen the journal's publication-ethics policies.