Purpose and Position in the Complaints Structure
Every journal operating under the LMI publishing framework shall maintain its own first-tier complaints and appeals procedure, published on its own website, covering editorial decisions, process concerns and conduct within that journal. This policy governs the second tier: escalation to the publisher where journal-level resolution is unavailable, structurally conflicted, or insufficient. Escalated matters are received by the designated LMI Publishing Integrity Officer, or by an independent person or panel appointed where that officer is conflicted; current contact details for that function are published operationally outside this policy.
When Escalation to LMI Is Available
- the complaint concerns the conduct or decisions of an Editor-in-Chief or the journal's editorial leadership as such;
- the journal's own process is structurally conflicted — for example, the persons who would handle the complaint are its subject;
- the complaint concerns LMI, its owners, managers or staff, or a service provider acting for LMI;
- there is a material allegation of publisher interference in editorial decisions (A3);
- the issue is systemic, affecting more than one journal or the framework itself;
- independent publisher-level review is otherwise necessary to secure a fair outcome.
What Escalation Is Not
LMI is not an automatic second appeal against ordinary editorial rejections. Disagreement with a journal's scholarly judgement — where the journal's own appeal procedure has been available and no ground listed above applies — is not a basis for publisher review, and LMI shall not substitute its own view of a manuscript's merits for that of the editorial authority (A3).
Handling Standards
LMI shall publish an accessible escalation contact and shall handle escalated matters according to the following standards. The matter shall be assigned to a handler free of conflict with any party or subject; where LMI's own leadership is implicated, handling shall pass to a person or panel independent of those implicated, whose identity and independence shall be recorded. Persons whose conduct is questioned shall receive a fair statement of the concern and a reasonable opportunity to respond before adverse findings are made. Relevant records shall be identified and preserved from the outset (A5, H2). Review shall be proportionate to the seriousness and complexity of the matter, and outcomes shall be communicated to the parties with reasons appropriate to confidentiality constraints. Matters disclosing possible research or publication misconduct shall be transferred into the framework established by C5.
Anonymous and Pseudonymous Concerns
LMI shall consider concerns raised anonymously or under a pseudonym according to their specificity, credibility, evidential basis and potential significance. A concern shall not be dismissed solely because the reporter’s identity is unknown. Anonymity may limit clarification, verification or the ability to communicate an outcome, and LMI cannot promise absolute anonymity where disclosure is required by law or fair process; nevertheless, identifying information shall be separated and protected so far as reasonably possible.
Timeliness and Communication
Escalations shall be acknowledged promptly, triaged without avoidable delay, and progressed with updates at reasonable intervals where a complex matter cannot be concluded promptly. Service targets may be published operationally and are not guarantees. LMI may set proportionate communication boundaries where correspondence becomes abusive, threatening or repetitious, but criticism, persistence, anonymity or inconvenience shall not by themselves justify restriction, and genuine new evidence shall still be considered.
Interim Protective Measures
Where necessary to protect evidence, confidentiality, participants, readers or the integrity of an ongoing process, LMI may preserve relevant records, restrict access, pause an affected administrative activity, appoint an independent handler, or request a temporary journal-level measure. An interim measure is protective rather than determinative, shall be no broader or longer than reasonably necessary, and shall be recorded and reviewed as the matter develops.
Outcomes, Communication and Reopening
An escalation may result in referral to the appropriate journal route; independent reconsideration of a process or governance decision; fresh conflict-free handling; a corrective action concerning policy, training, systems or oversight; referral under Research & Publication Misconduct Response Framework (C5); a record action under Corrections, Expressions of Concern, Retractions & Removals (G2); or a reasoned conclusion that no further action is warranted. LMI shall communicate the outcome and principal reasons so far as confidentiality, personal-data and legal constraints permit; confidential reviewer, employment, contractual or disciplinary information need not be disclosed merely to provide additional detail.
A closed matter may be reopened where material new evidence emerges, the earlier process is shown to have been materially defective, an undisclosed competing interest is identified, or a later institutional, regulatory or judicial finding materially affects the result. Reopening does not itself establish that the original decision was improper.
Abusive, Repetitive or Vexatious Communications
LMI may set reasonable communication boundaries where correspondence becomes threatening, abusive, discriminatory, persistently repetitive, or unrelated to a verifiable issue. Criticism, persistence, detail, anonymity, inconvenience or an unfavourable allegation shall not by themselves be treated as vexatious. Before limiting communications, the handler shall consider whether they contain new evidence or an unresolved issue affecting the scholarly record; genuine new evidence shall still be assessed.
Records and Assurance
Material escalations, conflict checks, evidence, correspondence, interim measures, decisions, outcomes and corrective actions shall be recorded with role-based access under Confidentiality & Personal-Data Protection (A5) and made available for proportionate assurance under Monitoring, Audit, Evidence & Transparency Reporting (H2).
Good-Faith Reporting and Non-Retaliation
This section applies across the entire LMI publishing framework and is the primary statement of the rule. A person who raises a concern honestly and on reasonable grounds — whether or not the concern is ultimately substantiated — shall not, for that reason, suffer retaliation by LMI or any journal, including rejection of unrelated work, exclusion from reviewing, removal from editorial roles, disparagement or procedural disadvantage. Deliberately false or vexatious complaints are not protected and may themselves be addressed under C5. Confidentiality of complainants shall be maintained to the extent consistent with fair process and legal obligations (A5).
Standards and Guidance
Informed by the COPE Core Practices on complaints and appeals and COPE guidance on the relationship between publishers, editors and complainants.