This page states BMU-wide publishing principles. It does not replace journal-specific author guidelines, peer-review descriptions, fee schedules or discipline-specific ethical requirements. Operational claims apply only where implemented by the relevant journal or publisher system.
What can be raised
A complaint may concern service, administration, reviewer or editor conduct, billing, privacy or publishing procedure. An appeal asks for reconsideration of an editorial decision because a material factual, methodological, procedural or conflict issue may have affected the outcome. An integrity concern addresses possible unreliable, unethical or deceptive conduct.
How to contact BMU
Publisher-level concerns may be sent to info@bmuventures.com. The communication should identify the journal or activity concerned, describe the issue, provide relevant dates or evidence and state the outcome or remedy being requested.
Where the matter is purely journal-specific and the journal publishes a dedicated complaint or appeal route, that route should ordinarily be used first.
Conflict-free handling
A person whose conduct or decision is directly challenged should not be the sole person deciding the complaint or appeal. Matters involving senior editorial or publisher figures may require an independent editor, adviser or ad hoc panel.
Editorial appeals
An appeal should identify a material reason for reconsideration, such as factual misunderstanding, overlooked methodological information, significant procedural irregularity, undisclosed conflict or demonstrably inappropriate reviewer conduct. General disagreement with academic judgment is not by itself sufficient.
Evidence and response
Relevant parties should ordinarily have a reasonable opportunity to respond, and the handler may review manuscripts, reports, correspondence, system records, policies and other evidence. Confidential reviewer identities, personal data and privileged information remain protected.
Possible outcomes
A decision may be upheld, varied or set aside. Other outcomes may include fresh review, reassignment, correction of a procedure, replacement of a reviewer, training, amendment of a publication, referral to an integrity process or a finding that no further action is warranted.
Anonymous concerns
Anonymous and pseudonymous concerns may be considered according to specificity, credibility, evidential basis and potential significance. Lack of a known identity may limit follow-up but should not by itself justify dismissal.
Non-retaliation and communication boundaries
BMU does not support retaliation against people who raise concerns in good faith. At the same time, reasonable boundaries may be applied to abusive, threatening, discriminatory or genuinely repetitive communications while still considering any material new evidence.
Policy basis and interpretation
Adapted principally from JHWCR Policy 4. The BMU version generalises journal-specific material into a publisher framework and removes details that should remain title-specific. Where a journal publishes a more specific requirement that is consistent with these principles, the journal-specific rule governs that journal's submissions.
Questions about this framework may be sent to info@bmuventures.com.