Comments and Complaints Policy

Brain Conflux operates an interactive and transparent publishing model designed to engage all participants in scholarly publishing with a commitment to responsibility and professionalism. All papers published by Brain Conflux include the names of the handling editor and reviewers, who have publicly validated the academic integrity of each article.

Our duty as publishers extends to correcting the literature when we are alerted to scholarly errors or unethical behavior by authors. The aim of our comments and complaints policy is to reflect the foundational principles of Brain Conflux by providing a community-driven mechanism through our editors that encourages scholarly debate. We handle all complaints in line with the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE).

Error Correction and Retraction Process

When errors are identified in an article, authors may publish corrections or amendments as corrigenda. For concerns of an ethical, legal, or scholarly nature that warrant further action, including retraction, Brain Conflux follows a detailed procedure consulting editors and executing their decisions.

Post-Publication Comments Policy

Readers can contribute to the academic discourse by submitting post-publication comments or raising concerns about specific articles. These commentaries undergo peer review, and we encourage authors to refer to our guidelines for submissions. Brain Conflux reserves the right to edit or reject commentaries that are derogatory or do not promote scholarly discussion. Authors must use their real identity; pseudonyms are not permitted.

Post-Publication Complaints Procedure

• Initial Contact: Complainants should first contact the corresponding author directly before involving the journal unless there are valid reasons not to do so. If initial discussions do not resolve the issue, readers may then escalate their concerns to the journal.

• Formal Submission: Readers wishing to raise a concern or complaint should email the relevant editorial office with a letter addressed to the specialty chief editor. The letter must contain information about the article, complainant details, the nature of the complaint, any previous contact with the author, and a declaration of interest.

• Complaint Evaluation: Only complaints concerning scientific/academic validity or ethical/legal aspects of the work will be considered. Personal criticisms, inappropriate language, or anonymous complaints without substantial reason will not be entertained.

• Investigation: Complaints are initially reviewed by the specialty chief editor, who decides if further investigation is necessary. Editors may consult additional experts and decide on the appropriate course of action. In cases of potential legal implications, Brain Conflux seeks advice from its legal counsel.

• Resolution: Depending on the outcome of the investigation, actions may range from closing the case as unsubstantiated to publishing a corrigendum, inviting a commentary, considering a retraction, or publishing an Expression of Concern. Decisions are made following COPE guidelines.

Complainants should be aware that investigations may take time. Brain Conflux does not disclose the status of ongoing investigations until a decision has been reached. Once a notice is published, it will be brought to the attention of the complainant. Communication ceases with those who do not remain respectful in their contacts with Brain Conflux staff or editors.