Complaints & Appeals Policy
Complaints & Appeals Policy
How to challenge a decision, report a problem with a published paper, or complain about how you were treated — and what response you are entitled to at each stage.
Last reviewed August 2026 · Applies to all submissions to JMVRA (ISSN 2984-8911)
Editors get things wrong. Reviewers occasionally misread a paper, processes occasionally fail, and published articles sometimes turn out to have problems. This policy exists so that raising any of that is a defined process with a defined timeline, rather than an email into silence.
What You Can Raise
Appeal Against a Decision
You believe a rejection rested on a factual misunderstanding of your manuscript.
Peer Review Concern
A review was cursory, hostile, biased, or shows the reviewer had a conflict of interest.
Concern About a Published Paper
Suspected plagiarism, data problems, duplicate publication or an authorship irregularity.
Process or Service
Unreasonable delay, unanswered email, a payment or invoice problem, or how you were treated.
Authorship Dispute
A disagreement about who should be listed, or in what order.
Data or Privacy
A concern about how your personal data has been handled.
How to Submit
- Email [email protected] with “Complaint” or “Appeal” and your paper registration ID in the subject line.
- Say what happened and what you want. A specific outcome — reconsideration, correction, an explanation, an apology — is far easier to act on than a general grievance.
- Attach the evidence. For an appeal, address each reviewer point in turn and say precisely where the reviewer was mistaken. For a concern about a published paper, attach the comparison, the data or the screenshots.
- Write from the corresponding author’s address where the complaint concerns a submission, or say clearly on whose behalf you are writing.
- Anonymous reports are read and acted on where they carry checkable evidence — but we cannot report the outcome back to you.
The Process and the Timeline
How We Handle It
What You Can Expect
- Assessment by someone not involved in the original decision
- Reasons given, not just an outcome
- Confidential handling — shared only with those who need to act
- No penalty for complaining; future submissions are unaffected
- COPE flowcharts followed for ethics cases
- A correction or retraction where the complaint is upheld
What We Cannot Do
- Reverse a rejection because you disagree with a fair assessment
- Reveal reviewer identities
- Adjudicate an authorship dispute — that belongs to your institution
- Act on an allegation with no supporting evidence
- Guarantee acceptance after a successful appeal; it returns to review
- Reopen a matter already closed at final review
If You Are Still Not Satisfied
Where a complaint concerns publication ethics and you believe it has not been handled properly, you may refer it to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), whose guidelines this journal follows. Complaints about research conduct are ultimately a matter for the authors’ institution, which alone has the authority to investigate its own researchers. Serious ethical concerns are also covered by the Research Misconduct Policy.
Where the Complaints & Appeals Policy Applies
The stages of a paper’s journey this policy governs are highlighted.
Applies at: Review · Publish · After
Complaints & Appeals Policy in Brief
Authors, reviewers and readers can challenge an editorial decision, report a concern about a published paper or complain about how they were treated. Every complaint is acknowledged within three working days, with a target of resolving it within thirty days.
A complaint is assessed by someone who was not involved in the original decision, and there are two levels of appeal. Appeals against rejection are considered when there is new evidence or a clear error in the review — not simply because the author disagrees with the outcome.
