An appeal should be based on substantive grounds that may justify reconsideration of the editorial decision, including:

• A significant misunderstanding of the manuscript.
• A factual error in the editorial assessment.
• Evidence that relevant information was overlooked.
• A demonstrable procedural irregularity.

Authors wishing to appeal should provide a clear explanation of the grounds for the appeal and, where applicable, supporting information. Appeals should be submitted through the journal's designated editorial communication channel.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. The editor may review:

• The manuscript and submitted materials.
• Editorial records.
• Reviewer reports.
• Additional independent assessments, where appropriate.

Appeals should not be used simply to express disagreement with an editorial decision without providing substantive grounds or evidence that supports reconsideration.

Complaints may concern matters relating to the journal's editorial and publication processes, including:

• Editorial conduct.
• Conflicts of interest.
• Peer-review procedures.
• Publication ethics.
• Other aspects of the journal's operations.

Complaints are handled confidentially and assessed fairly. Where a complaint concerns a particular editor, the matter should, where possible, be referred to another appropriately authorized member of the editorial team.

Concerns involving potential research or publication misconduct will be assessed in accordance with applicable publication-ethics procedures and relevant scholarly publishing standards.

Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA) does not permit retaliation against authors, reviewers, or other individuals who raise legitimate concerns or participate in an investigation in good faith.

The journal aims to resolve appeals and complaints in a timely, impartial, and documented manner while protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.