1. The authors can demonstrate that a significant factual error (by a reviewer or the Editor) directly influenced the final decision.
2. The authors can provide critical new data or analysis that was not available at the time of the original submission and that fundamentally addresses the reasons for rejection.
3. The authors can provide evidence of a substantive breach of due process or demonstrable bias in the review process.

1. Initial Contact: To appeal a decision, the corresponding author must submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office at [nfsrsbmu.ac.ir] within 30 days of the rejection decision.
2. Required Information: The email must include:
   • The manuscript ID number in the subject line.
   • A detailed letter addressing one or more of the grounds for appeal listed above, point-by-point.
3. Process and Timeline:
   • Appeals are treated seriously but must take second priority to the processing of new submissions. Therefore, a decision may take several weeks.
   • The Editor-in-Chief, often in consultation with relevant Associate Editors, will review the appeal, the original manuscript, and the peer review history.
   • Only one appeal is permitted per manuscript. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief following an appeal is final.

• Appeal Upheld: The original decision is overturned, and the manuscript is re-entered into the editorial process, often with instructions for revision and/or further peer review.
• Appeal Rejected: The original rejection decision stands.

Complaints Process

1. Initial Complaint: Complaints should be directed in the first instance to the Editorial Office at [Journal's Editorial Email Address]. Please provide a detailed description of the concern.
   • For complaints about the process (e.g., delays, communication issues), the Managing Editor or Editor-in-Chief will investigate and provide a response.
   • For complaints about publication ethics (e.g., suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship disputes), the Editor-in-Chief will handle the matter in strict accordance with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
2. Escalation: If the complainant is not satisfied with the initial response, or if the complaint is about the Editor-in-Chief, the matter should be escalated in writing to the Head of the Publishing Committee at the [National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute] at [Designated Senior Institute Email Address, e.g., publishing.complaintsinstitute.org].
3. Final Review: The Head of the Publishing Committee will conduct a final review of the case and their decision will be conclusive.