Complaint & Misconduct Policy

 This procedure applies to complaints about the policies & procedures of JRMC.We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively. The procedure outlined below aims to be fair to those making complaints and those complained about.

Our definition of a complaint is as follows:

  1. The complainant defines his or her expression of unhappiness as a complaint.
  2. We infer that the complainant is not simply disagreeing with a decision we have made or something we have published but thinks that there has been a failure of process—for example, an unacceptably long delay or a rude response—or a severe misjudgment.
  3. The complaint must be about something that is within the responsibility of JRMCs’ editorial department i.e. content or process.

How to make a complaint?

  1. Complaints should be made
  1. Whenever possible complaints will be dealt with by the editorial team member to whom they are made. If that person cannot deal with the complaint, he or she will refer it to the editor.
  2. All complaints will be acknowledged.
  3. If possible a definitive response will be made within two weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within two weeks. Interim responses will be provided until the complaint is finally resolved.
  4. If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints should be escalated to the editor, whose decision is final.

 

How do we deal with issues of misconduct?

 JRMC being a research institution have important duties and common interests in terms of research and publication integrity. We are of the opinion that institutions and journals should promote best practices among researchers, authors, reviewers, and editors.

To maintain the integrity and deal with misconduct allegations, the editor can be contacted at editor@journalrmc.com or at the JRMC Office, Rawalpindi Medical University Old Teaching Block, Tipu Road, Rawalpindi. The editor is responsible for investigating cases of misconduct by researchers and finds misconduct that affects the reliability or attribution of published work (e.g. fabrication or plagiarism). Where possible, the evidence is provided to support allegations of misconduct or questionable practices (e.g. copies of overlapping publications, evidence of plagiarism). Retractions or corrections are issued when provided with findings of misconduct arising from appropriate investigations. It is advised that the authors and reviewers should read the guidelines provided on this website and strictly adhere to all aspects of publication ethics.