Spectrum of Operational Research (SOR) is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, objectively, transparently, and without unnecessary delay. Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other interested parties may raise concerns regarding the journal's editorial procedures, peer-review process, editorial conduct, administrative processes, or other matters relating to the operation of the journal.
This policy distinguishes between complaints concerning the journal's processes, conduct, administration, or application of policies and appeals requesting reconsideration of an editorial decision. Complaints and appeals are considered separately from allegations of research or publication misconduct.
Complaints concerning the journal's editorial procedures, peer-review process, editorial conduct, administration, or application of journal policies should be submitted to the Editorial Office or Editor-in-Chief.
A complaint should clearly describe the matter concerned and provide sufficient information to allow the journal to assess it. Where relevant, supporting documentation, correspondence, manuscript identification information, or other evidence should be provided.
Complaints should be made in good faith and should identify, as specifically as possible, the journal process, conduct, decision, administrative action, or application of policy being questioned.
Complaints will normally be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately qualified editor or representative who has not been directly involved in the matter giving rise to the complaint.
Where the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the matter will be referred to an independent senior editor, the Publisher, or another suitably qualified person who was not involved in the circumstances concerned.
Where a complaint concerns the Publisher, the matter should, where reasonably possible, be considered by an appropriate independent editorial representative or another suitably qualified person who was not directly involved in the matter.
The journal may request additional information from the complainant or other relevant parties where necessary to understand and assess the complaint. Relevant parties may be given an appropriate opportunity to provide information or respond to the issues raised.
Complaints will be considered confidentially to the extent reasonably possible. Information will normally be shared only with individuals whose involvement is necessary for the appropriate assessment and resolution of the matter.
After considering the available information, the journal will determine whether the complaint is substantiated and whether any further action is appropriate.
Depending on the circumstances, the outcome may include clarification of the journal's procedures or policies, correction of an administrative or procedural error, reconsideration of a process where appropriate, referral of the matter to another responsible person or body, or confirmation that the journal's procedures were appropriately followed.
The complainant will normally be informed of the outcome to the extent appropriate and permissible, taking into account confidentiality, privacy, editorial independence, and other relevant considerations.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a material error occurred in the editorial or peer-review process, relevant evidence was materially misunderstood or overlooked, a relevant conflict of interest affected the assessment, or the journal's established editorial procedures or policies were not appropriately applied.
An appeal should not be based solely on disagreement with the scientific or scholarly judgment of the editors or reviewers. Authors requesting reconsideration must provide a clear, specific, and reasoned explanation identifying the aspects of the decision that they believe warrant further review.
Appeals should normally be submitted by the corresponding author on behalf of all authors and should include the manuscript identification information, the editorial decision being appealed, and a concise explanation of the grounds for the appeal.
An appeal should address the substantive grounds for reconsideration and should not consist merely of a revised manuscript, a repetition of arguments already considered during peer review, or a general request for another editorial assessment.
Receipt of an appeal does not automatically result in reconsideration of the manuscript or reversal of the original editorial decision.
The appeal will normally be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately qualified independent editor who was not materially involved in the decision being challenged, where this is reasonably practicable.
The assessment will consider whether there is sufficient evidence that a material procedural error, factual misunderstanding, overlooked evidence, relevant conflict of interest, or another significant issue may have affected the original decision.
Where appropriate, the journal may review the manuscript, editorial correspondence, peer-review reports, author responses, and other relevant material. Additional independent editorial or expert advice may be sought where necessary.
An appeal does not automatically require the journal to return the manuscript to the original reviewers or to obtain additional peer-review reports. The responsible editor will determine whether further expert assessment is necessary.
Following assessment, the journal may uphold the original decision, reconsider the manuscript, obtain additional independent assessment, return the manuscript to an appropriate stage of editorial consideration, or take another appropriate editorial action.
Reconsideration of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance and may result in the same or a different editorial decision.
The outcome of the appeal will normally be communicated to the corresponding author together with an appropriate explanation. Once an appeal has been fully considered under this procedure, the resulting editorial decision will normally be regarded as final.
Individuals handling complaints or appeals must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could reasonably affect, or be perceived to affect, their independence or impartiality.
Where such a conflict exists, the matter will be transferred to an appropriately qualified independent person. Further requirements concerning competing interests are provided in the journal's Conflict of Interests policy.
Complaints and editorial appeals should be distinguished from allegations of research or publication misconduct. Concerns involving plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, peer-review manipulation, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, or other suspected unethical behaviour will be assessed under the journal's Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Unethical Behaviour and other applicable journal policies.
Where a complaint or appeal also raises a substantive publication ethics concern, the journal may address the different aspects of the matter separately under the respective policies.
Complaints concerning errors, reliability, or integrity issues affecting an already published article may require assessment under the journal's applicable post-publication policies.
Formal actions affecting the published scholarly record, including corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, or article removal, are governed by the journal's Retraction and Correction Policies and are not separately defined in this policy.
Individuals who submit complaints or appeals in good faith will not be disadvantaged by the journal for doing so. The journal expects all parties to communicate professionally and to provide accurate, relevant, and truthful information.
Repeated, abusive, malicious, knowingly false, or deliberately misleading communications may be addressed appropriately. This provision is not intended to restrict legitimate criticism, complaints, appeals, or ethical concerns raised in good faith.
In handling complaints and appeals, SOR will consider relevant guidance and recommendations provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) .
Each complaint or appeal will be considered according to its individual circumstances, the information available, and the journal's applicable editorial and publication ethics policies.
