Complaints Policy
The NZMSJ takes complaints seriously. When a complaint is received, we follow COPE guidelines relevant to the specific complaint. Examples are provided below.
Allegations of Data Fabrication
In a submitted manuscript
We first ask for clarification from the reviewer regarding the concerns, if not already provided. We then directly contact the author and explain our concerns, asking for an explanation. If the author responds with a satisfactory explanation, we proceed with our established peer review process. If the explanation is not satisfactory, or the author admits to data fabrication, we inform the authors institution at which point an investigation is initiated. If this investigation finds the author has fabricated data, the manuscript is rejected. If no data is found to be fabricated, we proceed with our established peer review process.
In a published manuscript
We first ask for clarification from the reader regarding the concerns, if not already provided, and our intention to investigate. We then directly contact the author and explain our concerns, asking for an explanation. If the author responds with a satisfactory explanation, we thank the author and, if necessary, publish corrections. If the explanation is not satisfactory, or the author admits to data fabrication, we inform the authors institution at which point an investigation is initiated. If this investigation identifies fabricated data, the manuscript is retracted. If no data is found to be fabricated, we apologise to the author, and publish corrections as required.
Post publication critiques
The NZMSJ encourages academic discourse. We therefore publish critiques of articles as “Letters to the Editor”. We follow COPE guidelines when doing so. In summary, for a critique to be published, it must be directed towards the article content, not the authors of the article themselves. The critique must also be supported by evidence and add to discussion (i.e. not be trivial in nature). Authors of the original article are provided with an opportunity to submit a written response. The Post Publication Critique, and the written response, are both peer-reviewed prior to publication.
Article retraction policy
If serious misconduct is identified in an article, it may be retracted. Such misconduct includes but is not limited to undisclosed conflicts of interest, falsification of data, plagiarism, peer review manipulation, ethical or authorship concerns. In any such case, COPE guidelines are followed.
The NZMSJ takes complaints seriously. When a complaint is received, we follow COPE guidelines relevant to the specific complaint. Examples are provided below.
Allegations of Data Fabrication
In a submitted manuscript
We first ask for clarification from the reviewer regarding the concerns, if not already provided. We then directly contact the author and explain our concerns, asking for an explanation. If the author responds with a satisfactory explanation, we proceed with our established peer review process. If the explanation is not satisfactory, or the author admits to data fabrication, we inform the authors institution at which point an investigation is initiated. If this investigation finds the author has fabricated data, the manuscript is rejected. If no data is found to be fabricated, we proceed with our established peer review process.
In a published manuscript
We first ask for clarification from the reader regarding the concerns, if not already provided, and our intention to investigate. We then directly contact the author and explain our concerns, asking for an explanation. If the author responds with a satisfactory explanation, we thank the author and, if necessary, publish corrections. If the explanation is not satisfactory, or the author admits to data fabrication, we inform the authors institution at which point an investigation is initiated. If this investigation identifies fabricated data, the manuscript is retracted. If no data is found to be fabricated, we apologise to the author, and publish corrections as required.
Post publication critiques
The NZMSJ encourages academic discourse. We therefore publish critiques of articles as “Letters to the Editor”. We follow COPE guidelines when doing so. In summary, for a critique to be published, it must be directed towards the article content, not the authors of the article themselves. The critique must also be supported by evidence and add to discussion (i.e. not be trivial in nature). Authors of the original article are provided with an opportunity to submit a written response. The Post Publication Critique, and the written response, are both peer-reviewed prior to publication.
Article retraction policy
If serious misconduct is identified in an article, it may be retracted. Such misconduct includes but is not limited to undisclosed conflicts of interest, falsification of data, plagiarism, peer review manipulation, ethical or authorship concerns. In any such case, COPE guidelines are followed.
