FJMRI Journal | ISSN: Applied | DOI: via Zenodo | Open Access
Register
Impartial Dispute Resolution · Author Appeals · Scientific Dialogue

Complaints, Editorial Appeals & Post-Publication Discussion

FJMRI ensures transparent, fair, and accountable mechanisms for authors wishing to appeal editorial decisions or submit constructive scientific critiques of published works.

⚖️ Fair Due Process ⏱️ 14-Day Appeal Window 💬 Open Scientific Debate Last Updated: January 2026

01. Author Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that an editorial rejection was based on a demonstrable factual misunderstanding or technical misinterpretation by reviewers are entitled to submit a one-time formal appeal.

⚠️
Valid Grounds for Appeal: Appeals are only considered if the author provides specific, evidence-backed scientific counterarguments showing that reviewers made factual or mathematical errors. General dissatisfaction with an editorial decision or disagreement regarding novelty does not constitute valid grounds.

02. Step-by-Step Appeal Procedure & Timelines

To ensure systematic, unbiased review of appeals:

Step 1: Submission (Within 14 Days)

Corresponding author emails a detailed point-by-point rebuttal to the Editorial Office within 14 calendar days of rejection.

Step 2: Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief determines if the appeal presents substantive new factual evidence or demonstrates reviewer bias.

Step 3: Independent Re-Evaluation

If deemed valid, the manuscript and rebuttal are assigned to an unconflicted Advisory Editor and new external referee.

Step 4: Final Determination

A final decision is rendered within 14 business days. The outcome of the appeal is conclusive and cannot be re-appealed.

03. Complaints Regarding Editorial Conduct

FJMRI takes complaints regarding editorial process, unreasonable delays, breaches of confidentiality, or unprofessional reviewer tone with utmost seriousness.

  • Complaints must be submitted in writing detailing dates, submission IDs, and specific evidence.
  • All complaints receive an initial written acknowledgment within 3 business days.
  • Investigations are conducted by the Managing Editor with confidentiality safeguards for all parties involved.

04. Escalation to Editorial Ombudsman / Board

If a complainant feels their procedural grievance was not impartially addressed by the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief, they may request escalation to the Editorial Ombudsman / Governance Council.

🏛️
Ombudsman Autonomy: The Ombudsman operates independently of day-to-day journal operations, reviewing process compliance and recommending remedial action or peer review restarting.

05. Post-Publication Discussion & Reader Critique

Science advances through rigorous, ongoing debate:

Letters to the Editor

Readers may submit formal scientific commentaries or critiques regarding published papers within 6 months of publication.

Right of Author Reply

Original authors are immediately given a formal opportunity to respond. Accepted critiques and author replies are published jointly.

06. Whistleblower & Research Integrity Reporting Protections

Researchers, students, or institutional members who uncover credible evidence of data manipulation, image duplication, or scientific malpractice are encouraged to report concerns confidentially to [email protected].

🛡️
Confidentiality Guaranteed: The identity of whistleblowers is kept strictly confidential by the Editor-in-Chief and will never be disclosed to authors under investigation.