Complaints and Editorial Appeals

Clinical Medicine and Pharmacology provides separate routes for challenging an editorial decision and reporting a problem with journal conduct or service. A reasoned appeal asks whether a particular manuscript decision should be reconsidered. A complaint may concern confidentiality, bias, communication, fees, editorial interference or another failure of process. Reports questioning the integrity of research are handled under Allegations of Research Misconduct and have no reporting deadline.

Appealing a manuscript decision

The corresponding author should submit an appeal within thirty calendar days of the decision, identify the manuscript and provide a concise explanation of the alleged factual or assessment error. A point by point response should distinguish existing evidence from new work. Reasonable extensions can be considered when justified. An appeal should not rely solely on disagreement with a reviewer’s tone, the study’s cost or an author’s need for publication.

Independent assessment

The Independent Appeals Editor is appointed under Ownership Governance and Editorial Independence and must be qualified, unconflicted and uninvolved in the original decision. Clinical, pharmacological, statistical or research-ethics advice may be obtained from additional independent specialists. The original editor or reviewer may supply a factual explanation but cannot select the appeal assessor, participate in confidential appeal deliberations or determine the outcome. The independent assessment may confirm the decision, reopen review or request further evidence. An invitation to revise or resubmit does not guarantee acceptance.

Complaints about the journal

A complaint should state what happened, identify relevant correspondence and explain the remedy sought. Complaints about a handling editor are referred beyond that editor; complaints involving a Co-Editor-in-Chief or publisher follow the external appointment and recusal safeguards in Ownership Governance and Editorial Independence. Financial complaints are resolved administratively without exposing an author’s payment position to scientific reviewers. The journal does not retaliate against a person for raising a concern in good faith.

Communication and limits

The office aims to acknowledge receipt within five working days, make an initial assessment within fifteen working days and provide updates at least every thirty calendar days if the matter remains open. Complex investigations may take longer, and the journal explains meaningful delays. One independent merits review normally completes an editorial appeal; new evidence or a significant procedural defect can justify further consideration. Confidential reviewer identities and private employment information are not disclosed simply because a complaint is made.

Submitting and preserving the record

Send an appeal to cmpappeals@jandoopress.com and identify the manuscript, disputed decision, relevant dates and supporting evidence. Service complaints may be sent to cmpeditorialoffice@jandoopress.com; a complaint concerning that office or an editor may use the independent appeals route. The Research Integrity Officer handles concerns about research under the separate misconduct policy. While an appeal remains active, authors should not submit the same manuscript elsewhere without first withdrawing it from CMP. The independent outcome and reasons are communicated in writing and retained with the case.

Last updated: 17 September 2026