Biomaterials Translational deals with complaints and appeals in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): https://publicationethics.org/appeals. 

Comments and Complaints
When readers have issues or grievances regarding published papers, they should first try to resolve them directly with the corresponding author before contacting the Editorial Office.

If contacting the authors is inappropriate, the authors did not respond, or the issues were not addressed, the Editorial Office may be notified. In order to investigate, address, or resolve any issues or complaints, the Editorial Office will work in tandem with the author or authors, the complainant, and the Editors-in-Chief or members of the Editorial Board.

Where appropriate, complaints, remarks, or requests for updates on the paper's or its review process's scholarly legitimacy, ethical, or legal issues will be looked into further. With the assistance of the Editorial Board and final approval from the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Office looks into any complaints, comments, or requests for updates about published papers. Final decisions regarding ethical issues are made by the Editor-in-Chief or members of the Editorial Board, who are assisted by the Editorial Office by following the COPE's basic publication ethics principles. As needed, other individuals and organizations will be consulted, such as university administrators or subject-matter specialists. If there are legal ramifications to the complaint, legal help may be sought.

Criticism or personal remarks will not be accepted. Investigations are conducted into all complaints, even those that are anonymous. Insofar as it is appropriate and compliant with our internal protocols, the Editorial Office, any Editors-in-Chief, or other members of the Editorial Board shall make every effort to handle complaints in a secret manner upon request from complainants.

The Editors-in-Chief or members of the Editorial Board decide whether corrections, comments and replies, expressions of concern, or retractions should be made after an investigation and inform the authors of their decisions. Every change must be made in adherence to the journal’s policies concerning updates in published paper.

If more information demonstrating concerns is provided, subsequent communication will be taken into consideration if a complaint is deemed unfounded. Until a final decision is made, complainants may not be informed of the investigation's progress; however, they will be informed if any updates are released. Editorial Board members and the Editorial Office are not required to provide more information. If communication is not deemed kind or pleasant, it will be terminated. It should be noted by readers who have grievances or concerns that investigations take time to complete.

A complaint should comprise information about the article, and concerns regarding its scholarly, scientific, or academic validity, a synopsis of the main points and any other issues, a record of any previous correspondence with the authors, and a statement outlining any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal if they have a genuine cause to believe that the editorial board has wrongly rejected the paper. Authors who wish to request reconsideration of a rejected manuscript, or to contest a rejection, can do so by writing to the journal's Editorial Office via email (editors@biomat-trans.com) indicating the manuscript ID number.

Please note that reconsideration will be conducted only at the discretion of the journal’s editor(s). Please be advised that, due to limited capacity and space for publication in the journal, manuscripts that are considered low priority will ultimately be rejected.

Authors should explain in detail the reasons why they believe their manuscript should be reconsidered for the appeal. A thorough explanation must be included in the appeal, along with specific answers to the reviewers' and/or editor's remarks. Only after a "reject and decline resubmission" decision may an appeal be filed, and it must be filed within three months of the decision date. The appeal will not be further considered if these requirements are not met. A chosen Editorial Board Member will receive the manuscript and associated data, including the referees' identities, from the Managing Editor. The appeals will be acknowledged by the editorial office and will be investigated in an unbiased manner. The processing of appeals will be done within 6–8 weeks. The consulted academic editor will be asked to offer an advisory opinion on the article, which could support the initial rejection decision, suggest acceptance, or suggest additional rounds of peer-review. The Editor-in-Chief will weigh in to make decision regarding the appeal. A rejection decision following the appeal process is definitive and cannot be changed. For manuscript that is given a second chance for a reconsideration, the author will be requested to submit the manuscript as a new submission. The manuscript will then receive a new manuscript ID number and submission date, and undergo review as a new submission.

While under appeal, authors are prohibited to submit said manuscript for consideration by other journals. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Second appeals are not considered.