Help ?

IGMIN: We're glad you're here. Please click "create a new query" if you are a new visitor to our website and need further information from us.

If you are already a member of our network and need to keep track of any developments regarding a question you have already submitted, click "take me to my Query."

Discover the nexus of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medicine in our Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal – a platform for breakthroughs and collaborative expertise, driving knowledge and innovation. | Important Update! Building on our inaugural year's success, adjustments to article processing charges will take effect in October. More details coming soon!
Author complaint process

Author complaint process at IgMin Research

Our mission is to foster interdisciplinary dialogue and accelerate the advancement of knowledge across a wide spectrum of scientific domains.

Initiating the Complaint

At IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal, we value the contributions of all authors and strive to maintain the highest standards of transparency and fairness in our publishing process. As part of our commitment to excellence, we have established an Author Complaint Process to address any concerns or complaints raised by authors in a prompt, fair, and objective manner. This process aims to ensure that the concerns of authors are heard and addressed, thereby upholding the integrity of our journal and the scholarly community.

Step 1
  1. Submission of complaint: When an author has a complaint related to any aspect of the publishing process, they are encouraged to reach out to our editorial office. The complaint should be submitted in writing, either via email or a formal letter. To ensure clarity and precision, the author should detail the nature of the issue and provide supporting evidence or documentation.
  2. Providing essential details: As part of the complaint submission, the author should include the manuscript title, the name of the corresponding author, and specify the area of concern. These details facilitate efficient handling of the complaint and ensure that the correct publication is under investigation.
  3. Acknowledgment of receipt: Our editorial office understands the significance of prompt acknowledgement. Therefore, upon receipt of the complaint, we commit to acknowledging its submission within two business days. The acknowledgment serves to reassure the author that their concern is being taken seriously and will be addressed in a timely manner.
  4. Confidentiality and protection: We value the privacy and anonymity of authors during the complaint process. All information provided will be treated with strict confidentiality, and the identities of those involved in the complaint will be protected throughout the investigation.

Objective rationale for step 1

The first step in the Author Complaint Process focuses on the initiation of the complaint. By providing a well-defined pathway for authors to voice their concerns, we ensure that their feedback is received and taken seriously. This step lays the foundation for a fair and transparent investigation, promoting trust and accountability within our publishing community.

  1. Ensuring that the complaint is submitted in writing allows for a clear and documented record of the author's concerns. This helps in avoiding miscommunication and enables the investigative committee to have a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.
  2. Requesting essential details such as the manuscript title and the corresponding author's name helps in identifying the specific publication and individuals involved, streamlining the investigation process.
  3. Prompt acknowledgment of the complaint demonstrates our commitment to addressing author concerns swiftly and reduces any anxiety or uncertainty the author may have about their complaint's status.
  4. Upholding confidentiality throughout the process ensures that authors feel secure in sharing their concerns and minimizes any fear of potential repercussions.
  5. By providing a confidential and protected channel for complaints, we create an environment where authors can openly communicate their grievances, fostering a culture of openness and improvement.

By implementing Step 1 in an objective and informative manner, we strive to create a supportive platform for authors to express their concerns while reinforcing our commitment to transparency, fairness, and the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

Initial Assessment

The second step of the Author Complaint Process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal is the "Initial Assessment." This crucial stage is designed to determine the validity and relevance of the complaint submitted by the author. It ensures that only complaints falling within the scope of our process are addressed, while also offering guidance to authors if their concerns are better suited for other channels.

Step 2
  1. Receipt and acknowledgment of the complaint: Upon receiving a complaint from an author, our editorial office promptly acknowledges its receipt, typically within two business days. This initial acknowledgment serves to reassure the author that their concern has been received and is being taken seriously.
  2. Validity check: The editorial office reviews the submitted complaint to assess its validity. This check is essential to ensure that the complaint pertains to issues that fall within the scope of our Author Complaint Process. The criteria for validity include but are not limited to whether the complaint is related to the publishing process, ethical issues, or matters affecting the integrity of the journal.
  3. Confidentiality and sensitivity: Throughout the initial assessment, the confidentiality of the complaint and the identities of the involved parties are strictly maintained. Our commitment to confidentiality encourages authors to voice their concerns openly without fear of retribution, fostering an environment of trust and transparency.
  4. Scope determination: If the complaint is not within the scope of our Author Complaint Process, the author is informed promptly. The editorial office provides guidance on alternative channels through which the author can address their concerns effectively. This ensures that authors are directed to the most appropriate avenues for resolution.
  5. Assignment of investigative committee: If the complaint is deemed valid and within the scope of our process, an impartial committee is formed to conduct the investigation. The committee typically comprises members of our editorial board, with expertise relevant to the complaint's subject matter. In certain cases, external experts may be invited to ensure an unbiased evaluation.
  6. Documenting the initial assessment: Throughout the Initial Assessment phase, the editorial office maintains a record of the process. This documentation includes details of the complaint, the outcomes of the validity check, any relevant correspondence, and the decision on the complaint's scope. Keeping a comprehensive record helps in maintaining transparency and accountability.
  7. Timely communication: The editorial office ensures timely communication with the author during the Initial Assessment phase. Any questions or clarifications needed from the author are promptly addressed. The author is kept informed of the progress, and an estimated timeline for the investigation process is provided, ensuring that the author is well-informed throughout the process.
  8. Respect for authors' rights: Throughout the Initial Assessment, the rights and interests of the author are respected. This includes recognizing the authors' concerns, ensuring fair treatment, and involving them in the process whenever necessary. At this stage, the focus is on understanding the authors' perspective and taking their concerns seriously.

By diligently undertaking the Initial Assessment, we strive to ensure that the Author Complaint Process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal remains a robust and objective mechanism for addressing authors' concerns. This stage lays the foundation for a transparent and impartial investigation, reinforcing our commitment to upholding the integrity of scholarly publishing and promoting a collaborative and ethical research community.


If the complaint is deemed valid and within the scope of our Author Complaint Process, an investigation will be conducted. The investigation will be led by an impartial committee comprising members of our editorial board, and, if necessary, external experts with relevant expertise. This committee is tasked with conducting a thorough examination of all available evidence to reach an informed and fair conclusion.

To ensure the integrity of the investigation, committee members will not have any conflicts of interest with the parties involved in the complaint. Confidentiality will be maintained throughout the investigation, and all parties will be asked to provide any additional information or clarification that may be required.

The investigation will not only focus on addressing the immediate concern but also aims to identify any underlying issues or systemic problems that may have contributed to the complaint. It is essential for us to learn from these instances and improve our processes to prevent similar issues in the future.

The investigation is a crucial phase of the Author Complaint Process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. This step involves a thorough and unbiased examination of the complaint and all relevant evidence to reach an informed and fair conclusion. The primary objective of the investigation is to address the concerns raised by the author in a transparent and rigorous manner, upholding the principles of academic integrity and ethical publishing.

Step 3

Point-to-point elaboration of the investigation process:

  1. Assignment of an impartial committee: Upon validating the complaint's relevance and validity, an impartial committee is assembled to conduct the investigation. This committee comprises members of our editorial board and, if necessary, external experts with relevant expertise. Care is taken to ensure that committee members do not have any conflicts of interest with the parties involved in the complaint.
  2. Confidentiality and sensitivity: The investigation is conducted with the utmost confidentiality and sensitivity. All parties involved in the complaint, including the author filing the complaint and any individuals or entities implicated in the complaint, will be treated with respect and privacy. The details of the investigation will only be shared with those directly involved in the process.
  3. Examination of evidence: The committee will carefully review all available evidence related to the complaint. This includes the complaint itself, relevant communication records between the author and the journal, documentation related to the publication process, and any other pertinent information. The committee may also solicit additional information from the author or other involved parties to gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation.
  4. Objective analysis: The investigation is conducted objectively and free from bias. The committee evaluates the complaint and evidence based on established policies, ethical guidelines, and industry best practices. The goal is to ensure a fair evaluation that considers the rights and perspectives of all parties involved.
  5. Engagement with involved parties: During the investigation, the committee may engage in discussions with the author who filed the complaint, other authors if relevant, peer reviewers, and editorial staff involved in the publishing process. This engagement is aimed at gaining insights and clarifications to facilitate a well-informed decision.
  6. Time frame: The investigation is conducted promptly, with a focus on resolving the complaint in a timely manner. While the duration of the investigation may vary depending on the complexity of the issue, every effort is made to reach a resolution as quickly as possible, ensuring a fair and efficient process.
  7. Impartiality and integrity: The committee members are bound by strict principles of impartiality and integrity throughout the investigation. Any conflicts of interest that arise during the process are disclosed and appropriately addressed to maintain the credibility of the investigation.
  8. Documentation of findings: The committee meticulously documents the findings of the investigation, including any evidence analyzed, discussions held, and decisions made. This documentation ensures transparency and accountability in the process.
  9. Resolution options: Based on the investigation's findings, the committee identifies potential resolutions to address the concerns raised in the complaint. The range of possible resolutions may include, but is not limited to, issuing an apology, rectifying errors in the published article, providing clarifications, or implementing improvements to prevent similar issues in the future.
  10. Multiple perspectives: In cases where different perspectives on the complaint are presented, the committee carefully evaluates all arguments to arrive at a well-considered and just resolution.
  11. Decision-making process: The committee may employ various decision-making methods, such as voting or consensus building, to determine the most appropriate resolution. The final decision reflects the collective judgment of the committee members.
  12. Communication with the author: Throughout the investigation, clear and timely communication with the complaining author is maintained. The author is kept informed of the progress of the investigation and any potential resolutions under consideration. This open communication ensures that the author's concerns are valued and addressed throughout the process.

The investigation phase of the Author Complaint Process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal is a meticulous and impartial examination of the complaint and associated evidence. Through this rigorous process, we strive to address author concerns transparently, uphold academic integrity, and maintain the highest standards of ethical publishing. The investigation phase plays a crucial role in fostering trust, accountability, and continuous improvement in our publishing practices.


The resolution step of the Author Complaint Process is the critical stage where the findings of the investigation are used to address the concerns raised by the author. It is a comprehensive and thoughtful process aimed at rectifying any errors, providing clarifications, and ensuring that necessary actions are taken to restore the integrity of the publishing process. This step involves a point-to-point elaboration of the specific actions and measures that will be implemented to address the complaint in a fair and equitable manner.

Step 4

Elaboration of the resolution process:

  1. Addressing valid complaints: Upon completion of the investigation, if the complaint is found to be valid and substantiated by sufficient evidence, the journal will take immediate action to address the specific issues raised. The resolution process will be tailored to the nature of the complaint, ensuring a focused and effective response.
  2. Apology and acknowledgment: If the complaint identifies any fault or oversight on the part of the journal or its representatives, a formal apology will be issued to the author. Acknowledging and taking responsibility for any errors is essential in maintaining trust and transparency with our authors and the broader academic community.
  3. Corrections and amendments: In cases where the complaint pertains to inaccuracies or errors in the published article, the journal will make appropriate corrections and amendments. These corrections will be undertaken with utmost care to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the scientific record. Authors will be given the opportunity to review and approve any changes to their work before they are implemented.
  4. Additional information and clarifications: If the author's complaint stems from a lack of clarity or misunderstanding regarding certain aspects of the publishing process, the journal will provide additional information and clarifications. This may include details on specific editorial decisions, peer review comments, or any other relevant information that can help the author better understand the handling of their manuscript.
  5. Reviewer and editor feedback: If the complaint involves concerns about reviewer or editor feedback, the journal will carefully reevaluate the feedback provided to the author. The goal is to ensure that all reviews are conducted with professionalism, fairness, and constructive criticism, contributing to the improvement of the manuscript's quality.
  6. Improving peer review and editorial processes: The resolution process goes beyond addressing individual complaints. It also involves using the insights gained from the investigation to identify any systemic issues in the peer review and editorial processes. If any deficiencies are identified, the journal will take proactive measures to enhance these processes and prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.
  7. Confidentiality and privacy: Throughout the resolution process, the confidentiality and privacy of all parties involved will be strictly maintained. The journal will adhere to relevant data protection and privacy regulations, ensuring that sensitive information is handled with utmost care.
  8. Timely communication: The resolution process will be carried out with a sense of urgency to minimize any inconvenience caused to the author. Regular and timely communication will be maintained to keep the author informed of the progress and actions taken to address the complaint.
  9. Fairness and objectivity: The resolution process will be conducted with a strong commitment to fairness and objectivity. Decisions will be based solely on the merits of the case, and the journal will avoid any biases or conflicts of interest that may compromise the integrity of the process.
  10. Learning and continuous improvement: Every complaint received is seen as an opportunity for learning and continuous improvement. The journal will use the feedback received from authors to enhance its policies, guidelines, and editorial practices. By embracing a culture of continuous improvement, the journal aims to create an inclusive and supportive environment for all authors.

Conclusion: The resolution step of the Author Complaint Process is the cornerstone of our commitment to transparency and fairness. By promptly addressing valid complaints, making appropriate corrections, and continuously improving our processes, we strive to ensure a robust and trustworthy publishing platform for the global scholarly community. Through this commitment, we hope to build enduring relationships with our authors, fostering a culture of collaboration and excellence in scientific research.

Communication with the Author

Effective communication with the complaining author is a critical aspect of our Author Complaint Process. We understand that the process of addressing a complaint can be sensitive and stressful for authors, and we aim to provide them with the necessary support and information throughout the resolution process. This step involves a point-to-point elaboration of the communication process, ensuring transparency, respect, and collaboration.

Step 5

Point 1: Acknowledgment of complaint

  1. As soon as the complaint is received by our editorial office, we acknowledge its receipt promptly. This acknowledgment is usually done within two business days.
  2. We understand the importance of providing authors with peace of mind and knowing that their concerns have been received and are being addressed seriously.

Point 2: Designated communication representative

  1. To ensure consistent and personalized communication, we assign a designated communication representative to the complaining author.
  2. This representative is a member of our editorial team who is trained in handling complaints and is knowledgeable about the process.
  3. The designated representative serves as the main point of contact for the author throughout the complaint resolution process.

Point 3: transparent timeline

  1. Upon acknowledging the complaint, we provide the author with an estimated timeline for the investigation and resolution process.

  2. We understand the importance of clear expectations and aim to keep the author informed of any potential delays or changes in the timeline.

Point 4: Confidentiality

  1. We treat all communication with the complaining author with the utmost confidentiality. This is to protect the author's privacy and maintain the integrity of the complaint process.

  2. The author can rest assured that their concerns will only be discussed with the relevant committee members and not disclosed to any other parties without their consent.

Point 5: Regular updates

  1. Throughout the investigation, our designated communication representative will provide regular updates to the author on the progress made.

  2. These updates will include information about the stages of the investigation, any additional information required, and the expected timeframes for each step.

Point 6: Request for additional information

  1. In some cases, the committee may require additional information from the author to facilitate the investigation fully.

  2. Our communication representative will clearly communicate any requests for additional information, ensuring that the author understands what is needed and why.

Point 7: Explanation of findings

  1. Once the investigation is complete, our designated representative will communicate the findings to the author in a clear and comprehensive manner.

  2. The explanation will include a summary of the investigation process, the evidence considered, and the conclusions reached.

Point 8: Proposed resolution

  1. In cases where issues are identified, the communication representative will outline the proposed resolutions to address the complaint.

  2. This may include actions such as issuing an apology, making corrections to the published article, or implementing changes to internal processes.

Point 9: Author's feedback and approval

  1. The author's feedback on the proposed resolution is valued, and they will be given the opportunity to provide input on the proposed actions.

  2. If the investigation identifies specific changes or corrections required for the published article, the author will be given the opportunity to review and approve these changes before they are implemented.

Point 10: Appeal information

  1. If the author remains dissatisfied with the outcome, our communication representative will provide information on the appeals process.

  2. This will include details on how to submit an appeal, the grounds on which an appeal can be considered, and the expected timeframes for the appeal review.

Point 11: Closing communication

  1. Once the complaint is resolved, our communication representative will provide a final summary of the process and the actions taken.

  2. This closing communication will reiterate our commitment to resolving complaints fairly and transparently, while expressing gratitude for the author's engagement with the process.

Point 12: Feedback collection

  1. As part of our continuous improvement efforts, we may request feedback from the author on their experience with the complaint handling process.
  2. This feedback is invaluable in helping us refine and enhance our procedures and ensure that we provide the best possible support to authors in the future.

At IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal, our aim is to establish a supportive and respectful environment for authors, where their concerns are taken seriously and addressed promptly. By prioritizing effective communication with authors throughout the complaint resolution process, we hope to foster trust and collaboration with the scholarly community. Our commitment to transparency and integrity extends not only to our publishing practices but also to how we handle any challenges that may arise along the way.


At IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal, we understand that the outcome of the complaint investigation may not always satisfy all parties involved. As part of our commitment to transparency and fairness, we offer an appeals process that allows authors to seek a review of the investigation's outcome if they remain dissatisfied. The appeals process is designed to be objective, impartial, and free from any conflicts of interest, ensuring a thorough re-evaluation of the complaint and its resolution.

Step 6

Elaboration of the appeals process: 

  1. Formal submission: To initiate an appeal, the author must submit a formal appeal in writing to our editorial office. The appeal should clearly state the grounds for seeking a review of the investigation's outcome. The author should provide additional information or evidence that they believe was not adequately considered during the initial investigation.
  2. Appeal committee: An independent committee, separate from the one that conducted the initial investigation, will be formed to handle the appeal. The members of this committee will have no involvement or conflicts of interest with the parties involved in the original complaint. This ensures an objective evaluation of the appeal.
  3. Review of the original complaint and investigation: The appeal committee will carefully review the original complaint, the investigation report, and any other relevant documents or evidence. The committee will assess whether the initial investigation was conducted in accordance with our Author Complaint Process and whether all relevant information was appropriately considered.
  4. Additional information gathering: If the author provided new evidence or information in the appeal, the committee may request further details or clarifications from both the author and the initial investigation committee. This step is essential in ensuring that all perspectives are taken into account during the appeal process.
  5. Impartial evaluation: The appeal committee will conduct an impartial evaluation of the complaint and the investigation's findings. They will assess whether the original resolution was fair and appropriate based on the available evidence. The committee will not be influenced by any previous decisions or outcomes and will focus solely on the merits of the appeal.
  6. Consideration of new evidence: If the appeal presents new evidence that was not available during the initial investigation, the committee will give due consideration to this information. They will evaluate how this new evidence impacts the conclusions reached in the original investigation and whether it warrants a different resolution.
  7. Decision and communication: After a thorough review, the appeal committee will reach a final decision on the appeal. The decision may uphold the initial resolution, modify it based on new evidence, or recommend an alternative resolution. The decision will be conveyed to the author in writing, along with a detailed explanation of the committee's findings and the reasons for their decision.
  8. Finality of the appeal decision: The decision reached by the appeal committee is final and will not be subject to further review or appeal. It is essential to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the appeals process, and therefore, all parties are expected to accept the committee's decision as conclusive.
  9. Learning and continuous improvement: Regardless of the appeal outcome, we recognize the value of feedback and learning from each complaint and appeal. The insights gained from the appeals process will be used to identify areas for improvement in our editorial procedures and address any underlying issues that may arise.

The appeals process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal is an integral part of our commitment to ensuring that authors have a fair and transparent platform to address their concerns. It provides an avenue for authors to seek further review and ensures that all complaints are subject to rigorous scrutiny and impartial evaluation. By offering this process, we aim to strengthen trust in our journal and promote a culture of continuous improvement in our publishing practices.

As we move forward with our multidisciplinary journal, we will continue to uphold the values of academic integrity, ethics, and respect for all authors and stakeholders. Our commitment to providing a robust and accountable appeals process reaffirms our dedication to excellence in scholarly publishing and the advancement of knowledge in diverse fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medicine (STEM).

Continuous Improvement

At IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal, we are committed to a culture of continuous improvement. We value feedback from authors and other stakeholders as an opportunity to learn and grow. The lessons learned from the complaint handling process will be used to enhance our policies and practices, with the ultimate goal of fostering a more inclusive, transparent, and accountable publishing environment.

Step 7

Point-to-point elaboration of step 7: Continuous improvement:

  1. Feedback collection: To initiate the process of continuous improvement, we actively solicit feedback from authors, reviewers, editors, and other stakeholders involved in the publishing process. This feedback is gathered through various channels, such as online surveys, feedback forms, and direct communication.
  2. Feedback analysis: Once collected, the feedback is carefully analyzed by our editorial team. We categorize the feedback to identify recurring themes, specific concerns, and areas of potential improvement. This analysis allows us to gain insights into the strengths and weaknesses of our current processes.
  3. Identification of improvement opportunities: Based on the analysis, we identify areas that require improvement or modification. This includes aspects related to the manuscript submission and review process, editorial policies, communication with authors, ethical guidelines, and overall journal management.
  4. Establishment of action plans: For each identified improvement opportunity, we develop clear and actionable plans. These plans outline the steps we will take to address the issues and implement necessary changes. We assign responsibilities to relevant team members to ensure accountability and effective execution.
  5. Incorporation of best practices: In our quest for continuous improvement, we proactively research and adopt best practices in academic publishing. We keep ourselves updated with the latest industry trends and scholarly communication standards to stay at the forefront of ethical publishing practices.
  6. Engagement with stakeholders: To ensure inclusivity and representation in the improvement process, we engage with stakeholders, including authors, reviewers, editorial board members, and readers. This engagement may involve seeking suggestions, conducting focus group discussions, or collaborating with external experts in the relevant fields.
  7. Trial implementation: Before implementing major changes, we often conduct trial runs or pilot projects. This approach allows us to assess the effectiveness and impact of proposed improvements on a smaller scale, reducing the risk of potential disruptions to the regular publishing workflow.
  8. Monitoring and evaluation: Once the improvements are implemented, we closely monitor their effectiveness and impact on the publishing process and author satisfaction. Data is collected, and performance indicators are established to measure the success of the changes.
  9. Feedback loop closure: The feedback loop is essential to ensure that improvements are not static but responsive to ongoing challenges and feedback. We continue to encourage authors and other stakeholders to provide feedback on the changes implemented, which helps us refine our processes further.
  10. Transparency in reporting: As part of our commitment to transparency, we periodically report on the progress made through continuous improvement initiatives. These reports may be shared with authors, editorial board members, and other stakeholders, showcasing our dedication to maintaining high standards in the publishing industry.
  11. Learning and adaptation: Our continuous improvement process involves a learning and adaptive approach. We acknowledge that not all improvement attempts will yield the desired results, and in such cases, we assess the reasons for the outcome and adapt our strategies accordingly.
  12. Collaboration with the scholarly community: We believe that collaboration with the broader scholarly community is vital for fostering positive change in academic publishing. We actively participate in discussions and forums, both within the academic community and with professional publishing organizations, to exchange ideas and contribute to the collective advancement of publishing practices.

By embracing a culture of continuous improvement, IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal remains dedicated to providing authors with a robust and supportive platform for sharing their research findings. We understand that the landscape of academic publishing is dynamic, and we are committed to evolving alongside it to meet the changing needs of the research community. As we learn from our experiences, we will continue to implement measures that enhance the quality and integrity of our journal, promoting the dissemination of knowledge and advancing the frontiers of science and technology.


The Author Complaint Process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal is a crucial component of our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and fairness in scholarly publishing. We recognize the importance of listening to authors and addressing their concerns with diligence and transparency.

As we embark on this new journey with our multidisciplinary journal, we pledge to uphold the principles of ethical publishing, academic integrity, and respectful communication. We are dedicated to providing a platform that fosters innovation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing among researchers from diverse fields.

Our Author Complaint Process serves as a testament to our dedication to the scholarly community, and we welcome all authors to join us on this journey of academic excellence and progress. Together, we can contribute to the advancement of science and technology and make a positive impact on society.