An authorised, non-conflicted editor defines the issues, identifies relevant records, and coordinates assessment. If the Editor-in-Chief is implicated, another qualified editor handles the case. Independent external assistance is arranged where suitable internal handling is unavailable.

Preserve relevant submission versions, reports, correspondence, and evidence with appropriate access controls. Record the basis for significant actions. Reviewer and reporter identities remain protected under Confidentiality and Whistleblowing.

Relevant parties are normally informed of specific concerns and given a reasonable opportunity to provide explanations and supporting material. The editor may request research records, permissions, ethics documentation, or other proportionate evidence.

Restrictions on access must be considered under Ethical Oversight and Data and Reproducibility. Sensitive evidence should be examined through an appropriate confidential arrangement rather than disclosed indiscriminately.

Automated indicators and non-response are not conclusive proof of misconduct. Decisions should consider the evidence as a whole, including the ability to verify central claims and any credible alternative explanation.

The journal may seek independent methodological or subject advice and refer matters to the relevant institution, ethics body, funder, or other competent authority where formal fact-finding is needed.

Information sharing is limited to what is necessary and appropriately safeguarded. Institutional findings inform editorial assessment but do not replace the journal’s responsibility to determine the status of its publications.

Withdrawal of a submission, departure from an institution, or a request to discontinue the report does not automatically end examination of a credible concern.

Editorial processing may be paused while assessment continues. For published work, an Expression of Concern may be considered under its dedicated policy when readers require warning. Interim measures do not establish culpability.

The authorised editor records the findings relevant to publication and the reasons for the outcome. Possible outcomes include no further action, clarification, renewed assessment, rejection, or a post-publication notice under the applicable policy.

Relevant parties receive the outcome to the extent permitted by confidentiality obligations. Significant delays are explained where communication is possible. No universal completion period is promised.

An affected party may request reconsideration by identifying material new evidence, a substantive factual error, or a relevant procedural failure. A non-conflicted editor not solely responsible for the challenged determination assesses the request. External assessment is arranged where necessary.

A request does not automatically suspend an essential reader-protection notice. If the determination changes, the public record is updated transparently. Complaints about handling are routed under Complaints and Appeals; ordinary manuscript-decision appeals remain under Section 4.7.