Complaints and Appeals Policy

What this policy covers

Authors may appeal editorial decisions when they believe a significant factual error, procedural failure, or unmanaged conflict affected the outcome. Authors, reviewers, readers, and others may complain about editorial conduct, discrimination, confidentiality, publication ethics, or journal services. Disagreement with a reviewer alone does not establish a procedural problem, but relevant errors and evidence will be considered fairly.

How to contact us

Email editor@bridgereview.org with the subject “Editorial Appeal” or “Journal Complaint.” Include the manuscript or article title, reference number if available, the issue, relevant dates and evidence, and the outcome you are requesting. Appeals should ordinarily be submitted within thirty calendar days of the decision; explain any reason for a later appeal. Integrity, safety, privacy, and accessibility concerns are not limited to that appeal period. Anonymous reports are considered when sufficient information is available, although updates may not be possible.

Assessment and independent handling

We aim to acknowledge receipt within five business days and provide an initial substantive response within thirty calendar days. Complex matters may take longer; we aim to explain delays and the next expected step. These are service targets, not guaranteed deadlines.

A person who is the subject of a complaint will not decide its outcome. An appeal of an editorial decision will be considered by an editor not responsible for that decision. Complaints involving the founder, owner, or senior editor will be referred to an independent qualified adviser or editor with authority to recommend and oversee an appropriate remedy. If no suitable independent person is available, we will explain the limitation and seek an external reviewer rather than representing the matter as independently resolved.

Outcomes and confidentiality

We may uphold or revise a decision, obtain another review, correct a record, improve a procedure, or take other proportionate action. Appeals do not guarantee acceptance. We provide reasons for the outcome and identify any available further review. A further review may be appropriate where new material evidence or a significant procedural defect is identified.

Information is shared only as reasonably needed for assessment, response, or legal obligations; absolute confidentiality cannot be promised. Good-faith reports must not lead to retaliation. Personal abuse or threats may require communication limits without preventing fair consideration of the underlying issue. This policy does not restrict access to courts, regulators, institutions, or other competent bodies. COPE guidance may inform our process, but the journal does not represent COPE as a guaranteed external appeal service.