Complaints and Appeals Policy

The Environmental Health Engineering and Management Journal (EHEMJ) is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, promptly, confidentially, and transparently, in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policies and the relevant guidelines and core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal aims to ensure that all concerns relating to its editorial processes, publication ethics, editorial decisions, and the conduct of its editorial personnel are considered objectively and addressed through an appropriate and impartial procedure.

1. Scope of Complaints and Appeals

Any author, reviewer, reader, editorial board member, or other individual with a legitimate concern regarding the journal’s editorial or publication processes may submit a complaint. Authors may also appeal editorial decisions concerning their manuscripts.

Complaints and appeals may relate to, but are not limited to, the following matters:

• Editorial Decisions and Peer Review: Appeals against editorial decisions, including manuscript rejection, based on substantive scientific, methodological, or procedural grounds.

• Process Delays: Unreasonable or prolonged delays in manuscript screening, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication.

• Publication Ethics: Allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate or redundant publication, citation manipulation, or other breaches of publication ethics.

• Conflicts of Interest: Concerns regarding undisclosed or improperly managed financial, personal, or institutional conflicts of interest.

• Published Articles: Concerns regarding the accuracy, integrity, or ethical acceptability of articles already published in the journal.

2. How to Submit a Complaint or Appeal

Complaints and appeals should be submitted in writing to the journal’s Editorial Office by email.

Contact email addresses:

• ehemjkmu.ac.ir

• infoehemj.com

• ehemjournalgmail.com

The subject line should include the word “Complaint” or “Appeal,” as applicable, together with the manuscript ID, if available, and the manuscript title, where relevant.

The submission should include:

• A clear description of the concern and the grounds for the complaint or appeal.

• The manuscript ID and title, if applicable.

• Relevant supporting evidence and documentation, including correspondence where appropriate.

• The complainant’s contact details, where provided, to facilitate communication regarding the outcome.

Anonymous complaints may be considered where sufficient information is provided to permit a meaningful assessment.

Appeals against editorial decisions must identify specific scientific, methodological, or procedural grounds for reconsideration. Disagreement with an editorial outcome alone, without substantive grounds, will not normally justify reconsideration.

3. Review and Investigation Process

• Acknowledgment and Initial Assessment

The Editorial Office will acknowledge receipt of a complaint or appeal and provide a reference number within 1 week.

The complaint or appeal will undergo an initial assessment to determine its nature, scope, and the appropriate person or body responsible for reviewing it.

Where necessary, the journal may request additional information or supporting documentation from the complainant.

•  Responsibility for Reviewing Complaints

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for overseeing the handling of complaints and ensuring that they are assessed fairly and impartially, except where a conflict of interest or other circumstance requires independent handling.

Depending on the nature of the complaint, the Editor-in-Chief or the designated independent reviewer may consult relevant editorial board members, external subject experts, institutional representatives, or other appropriate authorities.

Allegations of research misconduct may require referral to the relevant institution or other competent authority for investigation, where appropriate.

•  Complaints Involving the Editor-in-Chief or a Conflict of Interest

If a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, or if the Editor-in-Chief has a direct or indirect conflict of interest in the matter, the Editor-in-Chief shall not participate in its assessment or decision-making.

In such cases, the complaint will be handled by an independent senior member of the Editorial Board or another appropriately qualified and impartial individual designated through an appropriate institutional or editorial mechanism. Where appropriate, a representative of the Research Ethics Committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences may be involved, provided that the individual is independent of the matter under review.

The designated reviewer must have no relevant conflict of interest and must be able to assess the complaint objectively.

•  Review of Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Appeals against editorial decisions will be assessed by a qualified editor or independent reviewer who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest.

The reviewer will consider the specific grounds of the appeal, the available scientific or methodological evidence, the peer-review reports, and the relevant editorial procedures.

Where necessary, additional expert advice or further peer review may be sought.

Following this assessment, the designated reviewer will determine whether the original decision should be upheld, reconsidered, or referred for further evaluation. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

• Confidentiality and Communication of Outcomes

Complaints and appeals will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible. Information will be shared only with individuals who need it to assess or resolve the matter, subject to applicable legal, institutional, and ethical requirements.

The journal will not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith.

The complainant will be informed of the outcome in writing, together with an explanation of the decision, subject to appropriate confidentiality restrictions.

4. Timeline for Resolution

The Editorial Office will acknowledge receipt of complaints and appeals within 1 week.

The journal aims to resolve complaints and appeals within 30-60 working days of acknowledgment.

If a case requires additional investigation, consultation with external experts, or referral to an institution or other competent authority, the resolution period may be extended. In such cases, the complainant will be informed of the reason for the delay and, where possible, the revised expected timeframe.

The journal will make reasonable efforts to keep the complainant informed of significant developments.

5. Final Decisions and Further Escalation

Following completion of the applicable review procedure, the journal will communicate its decision and the reasons for that decision to the complainant.

For appeals against editorial decisions, the outcome of the independent appeal review will normally constitute the journal’s final internal decision regarding the manuscript.

Following completion of the journal’s internal complaints procedure, the journal will communicate its decision and the reasons for that decision to the complainant. This concludes the journal’s internal review process, without prejudice to any applicable institutional, regulatory, or other external procedures that may be available.

If a complainant believes that a complaint involving editorial conduct or publication ethics has not been handled appropriately after the journal’s internal procedures have been exhausted, they may seek advice or refer the matter to an appropriate external or institutional body, where applicable.

COPE may be approached for advice or consideration of a complaint only where the matter falls within its remit and its applicable eligibility requirements are met. Where appropriate, concerns may also be referred to the relevant institutional authority, including the Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology at Kerman University of Medical Sciences.

External referral does not guarantee that the receiving body will accept or investigate the complaint.

6. Policy Review

EHEMJ will periodically review this policy to ensure that it remains clear, effective, and consistent with applicable publication ethics guidance and good editorial practice.