The corresponding author may request reconsideration by writing to the editorial office with the manuscript identifier, decision date and a concise explanation of a substantive factual error, procedural concern or overlooked evidence. A point-by-point response should accompany the appeal.
An editor who was not responsible for the disputed decision reviews the appeal where practicable. Additional independent advice may be sought. Reconsideration does not guarantee acceptance; the journal will explain the outcome and whether further review is warranted.
Complaints should identify the relevant interaction, policy and supporting records. The journal assigns a handler without a material conflict. A complaint about the Editor-in-Chief is directed to the publisher and assessed independently of that editor.
The editorial office will acknowledge receipt and provide an expected response date after assessing the matter. If further investigation is needed, the complainant will be informed of the reason for delay when possible. Raising a good-faith complaint must not disadvantage an unrelated submission.
Disagreement with an article’s argument can also be addressed through scholarly correspondence under the post-publication discussion policy.
Discovery resources for scholarly literature. Availability and coverage vary by platform.
About Discoverability →Authors retain copyright. New articles are published under CC BY 4.0.
Copyright & LicensingArchiving & PreservationPublished by Acadentium Research · Lahore, Pakistan
Annual publication: 15 June
editor@jlgrs.com
Authors retain copyright. New articles are published under CC BY 4.0. Historical articles follow their individual rights statements.
