Complaints Policy

*All complaints will be met with prompt and practical solutions, if applicable

  1. For Appeal Against Editorial Decisions In cases where authors disagree with the decisions of editors and comments of reviewers, they are given the right to appeal by directly contacting the Editor-in-Chief. Accordingly, the editor will begin by reviewing the manuscript, comments, editor’s verdict and make a decision, which may include re-sending the manuscript for a fresh editorial process. The editor-in-chief will then have the right to accept/reject the paper based on the outcome

  2. Editorial Matters

    For complaints related to policies, procedures, editorial content and actions of the editorial staff

    To make a complaint, please send an email to complaints@ierekpress.com. All emails will be acknowledged within 3- 5 working days. Depending on the complaint, it will be referred to the appropriate individual to deal with the matter and could be referred to the Section Editor as a first contact. If the issue cannot be resolved, the Editor-in-chief should take the matter into his/her own hands.


    The editor-in-chief will be handling the case only if it is related to matters such as policies, editorial content and actions of editorial staff. Depending on the seriousness and urgency of the case, decided upon by the person to whom the complaint is being made, a timeline for the procedure/investigation will be laid out. Frequent updates will be provided until the complaint is resolved.


  3. Responding to concerns

    Responding to whistle-blowers raising concerns directly (email or anonymously)

    Public disclosure of wrong-doing or criticism of an editor, reviewer, the publisher will be met with a request for evidence followed by an investigation. If guilty, a retraction/correction will be made and individual informed. If found not guilty, an end will be put to investigations carried out.


    Responding to whistle-blowers raising concerns publicly

    Criticism received concerning published articles on social media/peer-review sites will be met with an investigation and request of evidence for support. If yes, the matter will be dealt with the same way as concerns raised directly and retraction/correction made if found guilty.