Appeals, Complaints, and Post-Publication Corrections
Confmeets is committed to procedural justice and the perpetual accuracy
of the scholarly record.
Grounds for Appeal
An appeal is not a re-review but a mechanism to address significant
procedural flaws. Valid grounds include:
- Factual Inaccuracy: Demonstrable evidence that a rejection was
based on a reviewer's factual error concerning the methodology or
results.
- Manifest Bias: Compelling evidence of a reviewer's or editor's
undisclosed conflict of interest that materially affected the outcome.
- Critical Misinterpretation: Proof that a central argument or
finding was fundamentally misconstrued during review.
A successful appeal results in a completely new round of peer review
with different reviewers.
Complaints Procedure
Complaints regarding editorial conduct, process delays, or
unprofessional behavior are handled confidentially and resolved in
strict accordance with COPE guidelines, ensuring a fair and respectful
outcome.
Sustaining the Integrity of the Record
- Correction (Erratum): For minor errors that do not alter the core
conclusions.
- Expression of Concern: An editorial alert to flag serious, but not
yet conclusively proven, issues with a published article, often while
an institutional investigation is ongoing.
- Retraction: The formal withdrawal of a published article due to
egregious ethical breaches or irreproducible, fraudulent data. The
retraction notice is permanently linked to the original article,
stating the reason for retraction clearly.
