The peer review process and appeal to the Editor-in-Chief’s’ decisions are as follows:

Complaints by Authors

1. Complaints pertaining to matters related to a failure of process (e.g. lengthy delays) or reviewer misconduct should be emailed to the Editor-in-Chief.
2. All complaints should be accompanied with adequate supporting information (e.g., copies of email correspondence). If the complaint is related to a specific article, include the title and URL (if it is published) or the manuscript ID number (if it is unpublished).

Complaints by Public about Articles

1. Complaints by the public about author’s misconduct should be emailed to the Editor-in-Chief.
2. All complaints should be accompanied with adequate supporting information (e.g., copies of email correspondence). If the complaint is related to a specific article, include the title and URL.
3. Concerns may include, but are not limited to suspicion of unethical matters relating to:
   1. Manuscript (including undeclared conflicts of interest, false ethical declarations, use of identifiable images without consent or use of copyrighted images without permission)
   2. Image manipulation in a published article
   3. Publication process (including practices such as duplicate publication, self-plagiarism, salami-slicing or excessive self-citation)

Complaints about Editor-in-Chief

1. Any complaints about the Editor-in-Chief regarding severe misjudgements (e.g. an improperly applied retraction notice) should be directed to MMU Press. 
2. MMU Press will consider the complaints against the Editor-in-Chief only when there is a clear breach of policy.
3. A rejection of the submission of a manuscript is not a ground for complaint, unless there is evidence of misconduct on the part of the Editorial or the Editor-in-Chief. 
4. MMU Press will consider appeals against the Editor-in-Chief’s decision only when there is a clear breach of policy.
5. Investigations will be made to establish that correct procedures are followed, ensuring the decisions are reached based on academic criteria and not by personal prejudice or any form of biased decision that influences the outcome, and to resolve any outstanding issues.