The Netherlands Journal of Critical Care (Neth. J. Crit. Care) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, professional, and accountable editorial and publishing process. The journal welcomes legitimate complaints and appeals and handles them objectively, confidentially, and in accordance with relevant COPE and ICMJE principles.

1. Complaints

Complaints may relate to:

• Editorial decisions or procedures
• Peer-review processes
• Reviewer or editor conduct
• Publication ethics
• Authorship or contributorship
• Conflicts of interest
• Plagiarism or research misconduct
• Copyright or licensing concerns
• Publication delays
• Errors in published content
• Advertising or commercial practices
• Other matters concerning the journal's editorial or publishing activities

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the editorial office with sufficient information to allow the matter to be properly assessed.

Email: editor@njcconline.com

2. Handling of Complaints

All legitimate complaints will be reviewed as objectively and confidentially as reasonably possible.

The journal may:

• Review the relevant editorial or publication records.
• Request additional information or supporting documentation.
• Seek clarification from authors, reviewers, editors, or other relevant parties.
• Consult an independent editor or subject expert where appropriate.
• Refer serious ethical or research-related concerns to the relevant institution or authority.

The journal will aim to address complaints in a timely and professional manner.

3. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe there are substantive grounds for reconsideration, such as:

• A significant factual or procedural error.
• A misunderstanding of the manuscript's content.
• Evidence that relevant information was overlooked.
• A demonstrable problem with the peer-review process.
• A conflict of interest that may have affected the decision.

An appeal should provide clear and specific reasons for reconsideration and should address the basis of the original decision.

4. Appeal Procedure

Appeals should be submitted to the editorial office by the corresponding author.

The appeal should include:

• Manuscript title and reference number, where applicable.
• Date of the editorial decision.
• Clear reasons for the appeal.
• Specific responses to the editorial or reviewer concerns.
• Any new evidence or relevant information supporting the appeal.

Appeals that merely disagree with an editorial decision without providing substantive grounds may not be considered.

5. Independent Review of Appeals

Where appropriate, an appeal may be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, another qualified editor, or an independent subject expert who was not involved in the original decision.

The journal may seek additional peer review where necessary to determine whether reconsideration is justified.

6. Final Editorial Decision

Following consideration of an appeal, the journal may:

• Uphold the original decision.
• Reconsider the decision.
• Request further revision.
• Send the manuscript for additional review.
• Take another appropriate editorial action.

The decision following an appeal will generally be considered final unless exceptional circumstances justify further review.

7. Complaints About Editors or Editorial Staff

Where a complaint concerns an editor or member of the editorial staff, the matter should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief or, where appropriate, an independent senior member of the editorial team.

An individual who is the subject of a complaint should not be solely responsible for determining the outcome of that complaint.

8. Research Misconduct and Ethical Complaints

Complaints involving suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, unethical research, authorship misconduct, or other serious publication-ethics concerns will be handled in accordance with the journal's Policy of Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct.

Where necessary, the journal may follow relevant COPE flowcharts and guidance and contact the appropriate institution, ethics committee, or research authority.

9. Confidentiality and Non-Retaliation

The journal will handle complaints and appeals confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

Individuals who raise legitimate concerns in good faith should not be subject to retaliation or adverse treatment because they have submitted a complaint or appeal.

10. Good-Faith Submissions

Complaints and appeals should be made in good faith and supported by accurate information.

The journal does not encourage knowingly false, malicious, threatening, abusive, or defamatory complaints. Such communications may not be considered through the formal complaints and appeals process.

11. Commitment to Fairness

The Netherlands Journal of Critical Care is committed to resolving complaints and appeals fairly, consistently, and transparently while protecting the independence of editorial decision-making and the integrity of the scholarly record.

The journal may periodically review this policy to ensure continued alignment with recognized publication-ethics standards, including applicable COPE and ICMJE guidance.