Complaints and Appeals Policy

The Critical Patient Journal (RDC) ensures transparent, impartial, confidential and fast mechanisms for the presentation and assessment of appeals, complaints and grievances related to the editorial process, promoting accountability, the continuous improvement of its procedures and the trust of all stakeholders.

All appeals and complaints will be considered independently, objectively and in accordance with the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), as well as with the guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

⮚      Contesting Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal the editorial decisions regarding submitted manuscripts by means of a reasoned request addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, within a maximum period of 30 days after notification of the decision.

The appeal must present objective, clear and duly substantiated scientific arguments, identifying the elements that justify the reconsideration of the editorial decision.

The submission of an appeal does not in itself imply a new peer review or the amendment of the decision initially issued.

Whenever the Editor-in-Chief considers that there is sufficient grounds, he may:

●        Request additional clarifications from the authors;

●        To promote a new editorial appreciation;

●        Appointing independent reviewers;

●        Submit the matter to the editorial board;

●        Delegate the assessment of the appeal to another member of the editorial team whenever there is any conflict of interest or other circumstance likely to compromise their impartiality.

The decision resulting from the appeal process will be communicated to the corresponding author, duly reasoned, and will be considered final within the scope of the Journal's editorial process.

 

⮚      Complaints Procedure

Any person may file a complaint or complaint regarding the editorial activity of the DRC, namely in situations involving:

●        Inappropriate editorial conduct;

●        Conflicts of interest;

●        Irregularities in the peer review process;

●        Suspicions of scientific misconduct;

●        Non-compliance with editorial policies;

●        Violation of the ethical principles adopted by the journal.

Complaints must be submitted in writing and sent to the official contact of the Journal (revistadoentecritico@spedc.pt), containing sufficiently detailed information and, whenever possible, supporting documentation that allows the proper assessment of the facts.

Complaints will be analyzed with impartiality, confidentiality, diligence and respect for the adversarial principle by the Editor-in-Chief or, when applicable, by another member of the Editorial Team designated for this purpose. Whenever the nature of the case justifies it, they may be submitted to the Editorial Board or give rise to the adoption of additional investigation procedures.

RDC will seek to ensure the resolution of complaints within a reasonable time, informing interested parties, whenever appropriate, of the progress and conclusion of the procedure, without prejudice to the duties of confidentiality.

Actors who lodge appeals, complaints or complaints in good faith will not be subject to any form of discrimination, retaliation or unfavourable treatment as a result of their participation in these proceedings.

This policy reflects the commitment of Revista Doente Crítico to transparency, equity, editorial responsibility and the continuous improvement of its processes, contributing to the confidence of the scientific community in the publication process.