Globalmeetx Journals is committed to procedural fairness and provides
clear, transparent mechanisms for redress.
Appeals Process
An appeal is not a forum for re-arguing a rejected paper but a process
for identifying substantive procedural errors. Valid grounds include:
- Demonstrable Factual Errors: Evidence that a reviewer's critique
was based on a factual inaccuracy regarding the methodology or data.
- Perceived Bias or Undisclosed Conflict: Compelling evidence
suggesting a reviewer or editor had a competing interest that
influenced their judgment.
- Critical Misinterpretation: A demonstration that a key finding or
argument was fundamentally misunderstood during the review process.
A successful appeal typically results in the manuscript being sent to
one or more new reviewers for a de novo evaluation.
Complaints Handling
Complaints regarding any aspect of the editorial process (e.g., undue
delays, unprofessional conduct by staff or reviewers) are investigated
confidentially and resolved in accordance with COPE's best practice
guidelines.
Post-Publication Corrections
The scholarly record is a living entity, and the journal has a
responsibility to maintain its accuracy.
- Correction (Erratum): Issued to correct a minor, factual error
that does not alter the article's core conclusions.
- Expression of Concern: An editorial notice to alert readers to
serious, but not yet conclusively proved, concerns about the integrity
of a published article, often pending an institutional investigation.
- Retraction: The removal of a published article from the scientific
record. Retractions are reserved for egregious ethical breaches and
are clearly labeled, with a link maintained from the original article
to the retraction notice, which explains the reason for the
retraction.
