Home   >   Author Home   >  Peer-Review Process   >  Appeals & Complaints


The below procedure applies to the appeals to editorial decisions, complaints about failure of processes such as long delays in handling papers and complaints about publication ethics. The complaint should in first instance be handled by the Editor-in-Chief(s) responsible for the journal and/or the Editor who handled the paper. If they are the subject of the complaint please approach the in-house publishing contact. Please send the query to cscpress@cscjournals.org.

Complaint about scientific content, e.g. an appeal against rejection

Editors have very broad discretion in determining whether an article is an appropriate fit for their journal. Many manuscripts are declined with a very general statement of the rejection decision. These decisions are not eligible for formal appeal unless the author believes the decision to reject the manuscript was based on an error in the review of the article, in which case the author may appeal the decision by providing the Editor with a detailed written description of the error they believe occurred.

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor considers the authors’ argument, the reviewer reports and decides whether
- The decision to reject should stand;
- Another independent opinion is required
- The appeal should be considered.

The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.
If no error has occurred, the Editor’s decision to reject is final.

Complaint about processes, e.g. time taken to review

The Editor-in-Chief together with the Handling Editor (where appropriate) and/or in-house contact (where appropriate) will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.

Complaint about publication ethics, e.g., researcher's author's, or reviewer's conduct

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor follows guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor may ask the publisher via their in-house contact for advice on difficult or complicated cases. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, he or she can submit the complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics. More information can be found here.


Sometimes the Editor, in line with guidance published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including COPE’s retraction guidelines and in consultation with CSC, will determine that a published article needs to be retracted or that other corrective action or notification needs to be made to the published article. As referenced in the authorship agreement, the journal and CSC reserve the right to take corrective action as they deem necessary in the interest of their responsibility for maintaining a transparent and accurate academic record. If an author has concerns about a retraction or other action on their published paper (such as a correction or expression of concern), they may contact the Editor in Chief or CSC at: cscpress@cscjournals.org.

CSC will acknowledge receipt of the email. An ad-hoc CSC Research Integrity Group will then investigate following COPE guidelines. The investigation will establish whether the correct procedures have been followed and assess whether the author’s concerns have been addressed fairly and without prejudice. CSC will review the paper’s peer review history and any correspondence between the author, Editor and reviewers. CSC may also contact the parties involved to obtain further information where necessary.

The author will be advised of the outcome in writing. We aim to resolve issues as swiftly as possible, though please note sometimes investigations can take several weeks or more depending on the nature of the concern or complaint, the availability of relevant data and information, whether multiple authors and papers are involved, and possible involvement of the author’s institution or other external parties.

In the interest of allowing due process to take place, and investigations to proceed without prejudice, we respectfully request that anyone raising a concern or complaint allow the process to conclude before publicly commenting on the case.