Complaints and Appeals

1. Introduction

The International Journal of Agricultural Sciences (IJASC) is committed to maintaining fair, transparent, accountable, and consistent editorial and publication practices. The journal recognizes that an effective complaints and appeals mechanism is essential to protecting the rights of authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and other stakeholders, as well as maintaining confidence in scholarly publishing.

This policy establishes the principles and procedures for submitting, assessing, investigating, and resolving complaints and appeals concerning the journal's editorial decisions, editorial processes, publication practices, professional conduct, and implementation of its published policies.

IJASC distinguishes between a complaint and an appeal. A complaint concerns dissatisfaction with an aspect of the journal's operations, services, editorial conduct, publication procedures, or application of its policies. An appeal is a formal request to reconsider an editorial decision, particularly a decision to reject a manuscript or another decision that directly affects the editorial status of a submission or publication.

The journal will consider complaints and appeals fairly, impartially, confidentially, and without unnecessary delay. Individuals who raise legitimate concerns in good faith must not be subjected to retaliation, intimidation, or discriminatory treatment. At the same time, complaints and appeals must be assessed on their merits, supported by relevant information, and handled in a manner that preserves editorial independence and the integrity of the scholarly record.

This policy has been developed with reference to the relevant Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly those concerning complaints and appeals, editorial responsibilities, and publication ethics. It also draws on the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

The policy does not guarantee that a complaint will result in a particular outcome or that an appealed decision will be reversed. Its purpose is to ensure that concerns are reviewed through a clear, documented, and appropriate process.

Reference to COPE guidance does not imply that IJASC is endorsed, certified, or approved by COPE.

2. Description

2.1 Definition of a complaint

A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction concerning an aspect of IJASC's editorial, administrative, or publication practices that a complainant believes has been handled improperly, unfairly, inconsistently, or contrary to the journal's published policies.

Complaints may concern, but are not limited to:

Delays or irregularities in manuscript handling or editorial communication.
Inappropriate conduct by an editor, reviewer, editorial staff member, or other person acting on behalf of the journal.
Actual or perceived conflicts of interest affecting editorial handling.
Breaches of confidentiality involving manuscripts, peer-review reports, author information, or editorial correspondence.
Inconsistent application of the journal's published policies or submission requirements.
Concerns about peer-review procedures, reviewer conduct, or the fairness of the editorial process.
Errors or inaccuracies in published articles, journal metadata, publication records, or editorial communications.
Concerns about publication ethics, research integrity, authorship, competing interests, or other matters governed by the journal's policies.
Concerns about accessibility, transparency, or the accuracy of information published on the journal's website.
Other concerns relating to the journal's professional conduct, editorial administration, or publication practices.

A complaint may be raised by an author, reviewer, reader, researcher, research institution, funder, or other individual or organization with a legitimate interest in the matter.

2.2 Definition of an appeal

An appeal is a formal request for reconsideration of an editorial decision on the grounds that the decision may have involved a material factual error, a significant procedural irregularity, an inappropriate application of the journal's policies, an overlooked relevant consideration, or another substantial reason that warrants review.

Appeals may concern:

Rejection of a manuscript.
A decision made after peer review.
A decision to decline a revised submission or discontinue consideration of a manuscript.
An editorial decision concerning a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other post-publication action, where reconsideration is appropriate.
Another editorial decision for which the journal's procedures permit an appeal.

An appeal is not simply a disagreement with an editor's scientific judgment, an unfavorable reviewer recommendation, or the fact that a manuscript was rejected. It must identify specific grounds that justify reconsideration.

The journal recognizes that editorial decisions may involve legitimate differences in scientific interpretation, methodological assessment, relevance, originality, or priority. Such differences do not automatically establish that a decision was improper.

2.3 Distinction between complaints, appeals, and allegations of misconduct

Complaints, appeals, and allegations of misconduct may overlap, but they serve different purposes and may require different procedures.

A complaint focuses on a concern about the journal's conduct, operations, or application of its policies.

An appeal seeks reconsideration of an editorial decision on specified grounds.

An allegation of misconduct concerns suspected violations of research or publication ethics, such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, authorship manipulation, or manipulation of peer review.

Where a complaint or appeal raises a credible allegation of research or publication misconduct, IJASC may handle the relevant aspect under its Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

Where a concern relates to a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, the journal's Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections Policy and Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Retraction Policy may also apply.

The journal may separate different aspects of a submission when necessary to ensure that each issue is handled through the appropriate procedure.

2.4 Scope of the policy

This policy applies to complaints and appeals involving:

Authors and corresponding authors submitting manuscripts to IJASC.
Reviewers and editorial personnel participating in the journal's publication process.
Readers and researchers raising concerns about published content or journal practices.
Research institutions, funders, or other organizations raising relevant concerns.
Other parties whose legitimate interests are directly affected by the journal's editorial or publication activities.

The policy covers concerns arising before submission, during editorial assessment and peer review, after acceptance, during publication, and after publication, where relevant to the journal's responsibilities.

This policy does not replace institutional grievance procedures, legal remedies, or other applicable dispute-resolution mechanisms. It establishes the journal's internal process for handling complaints and appeals within its editorial remit.

3. Policy

3.1 General principles

IJASC will handle complaints and appeals according to the following principles.

3.1.1 Fairness and impartiality

Every complaint and appeal will be considered objectively, without discrimination or prejudice. Decisions will be based on the available evidence, the journal's published policies, and the circumstances of the case.

An individual who is directly involved in the matter or has a competing interest that could compromise impartiality must not be solely responsible for determining the outcome.

3.1.2 Transparency

The journal will provide clear information about how complaints and appeals can be submitted, what information should be included, and how the matter will be assessed.

Where appropriate, the complainant or appellant will be informed of the outcome and the general reasons supporting the decision, subject to confidentiality and other applicable obligations.

3.1.3 Confidentiality

Information relating to complaints and appeals will be handled confidentially and shared only with individuals who need it to assess, investigate, advise on, or resolve the matter.

Confidentiality will not prevent the journal from seeking independent advice, consulting relevant parties, cooperating with institutions, or making disclosures required by law or necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

3.1.4 Timeliness

IJASC will seek to resolve complaints and appeals without unnecessary delay. The time required will depend on the complexity of the issue, the availability of relevant evidence, the need to consult other parties, and the availability of independent reviewers or advisers.

The journal will communicate when additional time is needed and, where practicable, provide an indication of the next procedural step.

3.1.5 Independence of review

Where practicable, a complaint or appeal should be reviewed by an editor or other qualified person who was not primarily responsible for the original decision and who has no relevant competing interest.

If the Editor-in-Chief is directly involved in the matter, the complaint or appeal must be referred to an appropriate independent representative of the publisher or journal owner.

3.1.6 No retaliation

IJASC will not tolerate retaliation, intimidation, or discriminatory treatment against individuals who raise legitimate complaints or appeals in good faith.

The submission of a complaint or appeal will not, by itself, be treated as grounds for rejecting a manuscript, disadvantaging an author, or imposing a penalty.

3.1.7 Evidence-based decisions

Complaints and appeals will be assessed on their merits. The journal may request clarification, relevant documentation, or additional information where necessary.

Unsupported allegations, personal disagreements, and repeated assertions without new evidence will not automatically require the journal to reopen a matter that has already been fairly reviewed.

3.2 Who may submit a complaint or appeal?

A complaint may be submitted by any individual or organization with a legitimate concern about IJASC's editorial or publication practices.

An appeal against a manuscript decision should normally be submitted by the corresponding author on behalf of the author team. The corresponding author should ensure that the appeal accurately represents the authors' position and that any relevant co-authors have been consulted.

A person directly affected by another type of editorial decision may submit a request for reconsideration where appropriate.

Third parties may raise concerns about the journal's conduct or published content. However, the journal may limit access to confidential editorial information to protect the rights and privacy of authors, reviewers, and other individuals.

Anonymous complaints may be considered where they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information to permit meaningful assessment. Appeals ordinarily require sufficient identification of the manuscript and the decision being challenged.

3.3 Grounds for complaints

A complaint should identify the conduct, process, decision, or publication practice that is considered inappropriate and explain why it warrants review.

Potential grounds include:

Failure to follow the journal's published editorial procedures.
Unreasonable or unexplained delays in editorial handling.
Inappropriate, discriminatory, or unprofessional communication.
Breach of confidentiality or unauthorized disclosure of editorial information.
Failure to disclose or appropriately manage a relevant competing interest.
Inconsistent application of submission, peer-review, or publication policies.
Procedural irregularities that may have affected the fairness of editorial handling.
Errors in published content or publication records.
Failure to respond appropriately to a credible publication ethics concern.
Other substantiated concerns about the journal's conduct or responsibilities.

The complainant should distinguish between an observable procedural or conduct concern and disagreement with an editorial outcome.

Where the underlying concern is that a manuscript was rejected, the request should normally be treated as an appeal if the complainant seeks reconsideration of that decision.

3.4 Grounds for appeals against editorial decisions

An appeal should identify specific and substantive reasons why the original decision may warrant reconsideration.

Valid grounds may include:

Material factual error: The decision appears to rely on a demonstrably incorrect factual statement about the manuscript, its methods, data, or findings.
Significant procedural irregularity: The manuscript was not handled in accordance with a material requirement of the journal's stated editorial or peer-review process.
Misapplication of journal policy: A relevant published policy was applied incorrectly or inconsistently.
Overlooked material information: Relevant information already available during the decision-making process appears not to have been considered and could reasonably affect the outcome.
Substantiated concern about bias or a competing interest: There is specific evidence suggesting that an undeclared or unmanaged competing interest may have materially affected the decision.
Material misunderstanding of the manuscript: The decision appears to rest on a demonstrable misunderstanding of the research that could materially affect the editorial assessment.
Other exceptional grounds: New, material evidence or another substantial procedural or factual consideration that justifies reconsideration.

An appeal should not be based solely on the following:

The authors disagree with the editor's assessment of novelty, significance, relevance, or priority.
The authors disagree with a reviewer's scientific interpretation without identifying a material factual or procedural issue.
The manuscript has been accepted by another journal or has received a favorable decision elsewhere.
The authors believe that the work deserves publication solely because considerable time or resources were invested in it.
The authors request a different outcome without identifying a specific error or exceptional ground for review.

IJASC recognizes that scientific judgment can be legitimately contested. However, an appeal must identify a substantive reason for reconsideration rather than merely repeat arguments already considered during the original editorial assessment.

3.5 Submission and acknowledgment of complaints

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the journal's designated contact:

Responsible office: [INSERT DESIGNATED EDITORIAL OFFICE OR COMPLAINTS CONTACT]

Email: [INSERT VERIFIED OFFICIAL EDITORIAL EMAIL]

Suggested subject line: Complaint Concerning IJASC Editorial or Publication Practices

A complaint should include, where applicable:

The complainant's name and contact details.
The manuscript title, article title, DOI, URL, or manuscript identification number.
A description of the issue.
Relevant dates, communications, decisions, or procedures.
Supporting evidence or documentation.
The steps already taken to address the issue, if any.
The outcome or remedy sought, where appropriate.

The journal should acknowledge receipt when contact information is available and an acknowledgment is appropriate.

The acknowledgment should confirm receipt without implying that the complaint has been substantiated or that a particular outcome will follow.

Where a complaint is incomplete, the journal may request clarification before proceeding. Where the concern falls outside the journal's remit, the journal may explain the limits of its authority and, where appropriate, identify a more suitable channel.

3.6 Assessment and investigation of complaints

Upon receiving a complaint, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated person will determine the nature of the concern and the appropriate process for handling it.

The initial assessment should establish:

Whether the complaint concerns a matter within IJASC's responsibility.
Whether the issue is a complaint, an appeal, an allegation of misconduct, or a combination of these.
Whether sufficient information is available to assess the concern.
Whether an editor or other participant has a relevant competing interest.
Whether additional evidence or an explanation from another party is necessary.
Whether the complaint requires independent advice or referral to another policy or institution.
Whether an interim measure is needed to protect confidentiality, fairness, or the scholarly record.

The journal may request additional information from the complainant or other relevant parties. It may review editorial records, correspondence, reviewer reports, submission histories, published policies, or other documentation relevant to the issue.

Where a complaint concerns an editor's conduct, that editor should not determine the outcome of the complaint. An independent editor or appropriate representative of the publisher or journal owner should be appointed.

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the matter must be referred to the designated independent authority rather than being decided by the person whose conduct is being questioned.

3.7 Procedure for appealing a manuscript rejection

An author who wishes to appeal a rejection decision should submit a reasoned written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief or designated independent editorial contact.

The appeal should include:

The manuscript title and identification number.
The date of the decision being appealed.
A concise statement of the grounds for appeal.
A point-by-point explanation of the alleged factual or procedural errors.
References to relevant sections of the manuscript, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or journal policies.
Supporting evidence or material information not adequately considered in the original decision.
Confirmation that the appeal represents the authors' position, where appropriate.

The appeal should focus on the original decision and the specific reasons why reconsideration is warranted. It should not be used merely as an opportunity to submit a substantially revised manuscript or to introduce extensive new research that was not part of the original submission.

The journal may ask the authors to clarify their arguments or provide additional information. If the appeal identifies no substantive grounds for reconsideration, the original decision may be upheld without a full independent reassessment.

An appeal does not automatically guarantee a new peer review, a further revision opportunity, or acceptance.

3.8 Independent consideration of appeals

Where an appeal warrants substantive review, IJASC should arrange for it to be considered by an editor who was not primarily responsible for the original decision, where practicable.

Depending on the nature of the appeal, the reviewer of the appeal may:

Review the original manuscript and editorial decision.
Examine the original reviewer reports and the authors' response.
Assess the alleged factual or procedural error.
Seek advice from an independent subject specialist.
Consult the relevant journal policies.
Request clarification from the original editor without allowing that editor to determine the appeal alone.
Consider whether the original decision should be upheld, reconsidered, or referred for additional review.

The appeal reviewer should focus on the grounds presented and whether they materially affect the validity or fairness of the original decision.

If the appeal reveals a substantial procedural error or a material factual misunderstanding, the journal may reconsider the decision or arrange a further editorial assessment.

If the appeal does not establish a sufficient basis for reconsideration, the original decision may be upheld.

3.9 Possible outcomes of complaints and appeals

Depending on the nature of the matter and the evidence available, possible outcomes include:

Closing the complaint or appeal because it is unsupported or falls outside the journal's remit.
Providing clarification of the journal's procedures or the reasons for an editorial decision.
Correcting an administrative or communication error.
Acknowledging a procedural deficiency and implementing appropriate improvements.
Referring the matter to an independent editor, adviser, or appropriate authority.
Reconsidering an editorial decision where material grounds have been established.
Arranging a new or additional editorial assessment when warranted.
Requesting a further peer-review assessment where appropriate.
Upholding the original editorial decision.
Referring a related allegation of misconduct to the relevant research institution or handling it under the journal's misconduct policy.
Issuing a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other public notice where the complaint concerns a published article and corrective action is justified.
Taking other proportionate measures within the journal's editorial remit.

A successful appeal means that the original decision warrants reconsideration; it does not necessarily mean that the manuscript will be accepted.

Similarly, a substantiated complaint may lead to an explanation, a procedural correction, or another appropriate remedy without changing the scientific assessment of a manuscript.

The journal should communicate the outcome and its general rationale to the relevant parties, subject to confidentiality and applicable obligations.

3.10 Complaints concerning peer review

Complaints concerning peer review may include allegations of inappropriate reviewer conduct, unreasonable handling delays, breaches of confidentiality, conflicts of interest, bias, or failure to follow the journal's published review process.

IJASC will assess such complaints by reviewing the relevant editorial records and communications, as appropriate.

The journal may seek clarification from the reviewer, handling editor, or other relevant party. However, it will protect confidential peer-review information and will not disclose reviewer identities beyond what is permitted by the journal's peer-review model and applicable requirements.

A disagreement with a reviewer's scientific opinion is not, by itself, evidence of misconduct or procedural unfairness. The journal will consider whether the review was relevant, professionally conducted, and appropriately considered in the editorial decision.

Where a reviewer has acted improperly or a material procedural defect is identified, the journal may disregard an inappropriate review, seek an alternative assessment, or take other appropriate action.

3.11 Complaints concerning editorial conduct or conflicts of interest

A complaint concerning an editor's conduct or possible competing interest should be assessed independently of the individual whose conduct is questioned.

The journal may review relevant correspondence, editorial records, declarations, and other information necessary to determine whether the concern warrants further action.

Where a competing interest is identified, the journal should consider whether it was appropriately disclosed and managed, and whether it may have affected the fairness or independence of the editorial process.

If the Editor-in-Chief is implicated, the complaint should be referred to the designated independent representative of the publisher or journal owner.

Independent escalation contact: [INSERT VERIFIED CONTACT OR GOVERNANCE PROCEDURE]

The journal should establish this escalation mechanism before publishing the policy so that complaints concerning senior editorial personnel can be handled impartially.

3.12 Complaints concerning published articles

Complaints about errors, misleading statements, questionable research practices, or other concerns affecting a published article will be assessed according to the nature of the issue and its potential effect on the scholarly record.

The journal may request clarification from the authors, review the published material and supporting documentation, consult independent experts, or contact the relevant institution.

If the concern is substantiated, the journal will determine whether a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other action is appropriate.

The journal will not alter or remove a published article solely because a complaint has been submitted. Editorial action must be supported by an appropriate assessment and must follow the relevant post-publication policies.

Where an issue concerns suspected research or publication misconduct, the journal may apply its Allegations of Misconduct Policy in addition to this policy.

3.13 Timeframes for complaints and appeals

IJASC will seek to handle complaints and appeals as promptly as reasonably possible.

The time required will depend on the complexity of the issue, the availability of documentation, the need for independent advice, and the involvement of external parties or institutions.

The journal should acknowledge a complaint or appeal when appropriate and communicate significant delays where practicable.

The journal should establish and publish operational target timeframes for acknowledgment, initial assessment, and communication of outcomes if it intends to make specific service commitments.

Target for acknowledgment: [INSERT APPROVED TIMEFRAME]

Target for initial assessment: [INSERT APPROVED TIMEFRAME]

Target for communicating an outcome: [INSERT APPROVED TIMEFRAME OR STATE THAT THE PERIOD DEPENDS ON CASE COMPLEXITY]

These targets should be realistic and should not compromise fairness or the quality of the assessment. If a case requires additional time, the journal should document the reason and, where possible, inform the parties of the revised expectation.

3.14 Confidentiality and protection against retaliation

All complaints and appeals will be handled with due regard for confidentiality, privacy, and the legitimate interests of the parties involved.

The journal will make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscripts, peer-review reports, personal information, and internal editorial correspondence.

Individuals who raise concerns in good faith should not be penalized merely for making a complaint or appeal. Any subsequent editorial decisions must remain based on the merits of the manuscript and the applicable journal policies.

Where a complaint or appeal involves sensitive personal information, the journal should limit collection, use, and disclosure to what is reasonably necessary for handling the matter.

Confidentiality will not be used to conceal a substantiated problem that requires an appropriate public correction or other action to protect the scholarly record.

3.15 Record keeping and documentation

The journal will maintain appropriate records of complaints and appeals, including:

The date the complaint or appeal was received.
The identity and contact information of the complainant or appellant, where provided.
The manuscript or publication concerned, where applicable.
A summary of the issues raised.
Supporting evidence and relevant correspondence.
The identity of the person or body responsible for handling the matter.
Any competing interests identified and the measures taken to manage them.
The assessment or investigation conducted.
The decision and its rationale.
Communications with the relevant parties.
Any corrective, procedural, or editorial action taken.

Records should be accurate, securely stored, and accessible only to authorized individuals.

Record retention period: [INSERT APPROVED RETENTION PERIOD OR APPLICABLE RECORDS POLICY]

The retention period should be consistent with the journal's data-protection practices, institutional requirements, and the need to maintain an auditable record of editorial decisions.

3.16 Relationship with other journal policies

This policy should be read together with IJASC's other publication ethics and editorial policies.

Allegations of Misconduct: applies where a complaint or appeal raises suspected research or publication misconduct.
Authorship and Contributorship: applies to disputes or complaints concerning author eligibility, author order, and contribution statements.
Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests: applies to concerns about undeclared or inadequately managed interests.
Peer Review Processes: applies to the journal's review procedures and the responsibilities of reviewers and editors.
Ethical Oversight and Research Ethics: applies to concerns about ethical approval, consent, research permits, and related requirements.
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections: applies to post-publication concerns and corrective notices.
Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Retraction: applies to suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, and decisions concerning retraction.

Where a matter falls within more than one policy, IJASC may apply the relevant procedures together while maintaining a clear record of the issues being assessed and the decisions made.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

4.1 Designated contact and submission channels

IJASC should publish a clear contact route for complaints and appeals on its website.

Complaints and appeals contact: [INSERT VERIFIED EDITORIAL OFFICE OR RESPONSIBLE OFFICER]

Email: [INSERT VERIFIED OFFICIAL EMAIL ADDRESS]

Independent escalation contact: [INSERT VERIFIED PUBLISHER, JOURNAL OWNER, OR GOVERNANCE CONTACT]

The published contact information should be checked periodically to ensure that messages reach the appropriate person or office.

If the complaint concerns the person who would ordinarily receive it, the complainant should be able to submit the matter through the independent escalation route.

4.2 Procedure for handling a complaint

The journal should follow a documented process for receiving and resolving complaints.

Step 1: Receipt and registration. Record the complaint, date of receipt, relevant manuscript or publication, and the information provided.

Step 2: Acknowledgment. Acknowledge receipt when appropriate and explain the next procedural step where possible.

Step 3: Classification. Determine whether the matter is a complaint, an appeal, an allegation of misconduct, or a combination of these.

Step 4: Conflict-of-interest assessment. Identify whether the person responsible for handling the complaint has any competing interest and appoint an alternative decision-maker if necessary.

Step 5: Initial assessment. Determine whether the complaint falls within the journal's remit and whether sufficient information is available.

Step 6: Further inquiry. Request additional information, review relevant records, or seek independent advice as necessary.

Step 7: Decision. Determine the appropriate response based on the evidence and the journal's policies.

Step 8: Communication. Inform the relevant parties of the outcome and its general rationale, subject to confidentiality.

Step 9: Documentation and closure. Record the decision, its basis, and any follow-up action.

The procedure may be adapted to the circumstances of the complaint. Urgent matters involving confidentiality, research integrity, or the immediate reliability of a published article may require prompt interim action.

4.3 Procedure for handling an appeal

An appeal should be handled through a process that allows independent consideration of the grounds raised.

Step 1: Submission. The corresponding author or other directly affected party submits a reasoned appeal identifying the decision and grounds for reconsideration.

Step 2: Eligibility and completeness check. The journal checks that the appeal identifies the decision being challenged and provides sufficient information to permit assessment.

Step 3: Initial screening. The responsible editor determines whether the appeal raises substantive factual, procedural, or policy-related grounds.

Step 4: Independent assignment. Where further review is warranted, an editor or qualified adviser who was not primarily responsible for the original decision should be appointed where practicable.

Step 5: Review of the grounds. The appeal reviewer examines the relevant decision, manuscript, reports, correspondence, and supporting evidence.

Step 6: Additional consultation. Where necessary, the journal may obtain independent subject expertise or request clarification from the original editor or other relevant parties.

Step 7: Outcome. The appeal reviewer recommends or determines, according to the journal's governance arrangements, whether the original decision should be upheld, reconsidered, or referred for additional assessment.

Step 8: Communication. The journal communicates the outcome and the general reasons for the decision to the appellant.

Step 9: Documentation. The journal records the outcome and closes the appeal or identifies any further action required.

The journal should define clearly who has authority to make the final decision on an appeal and ensure that the person responsible is sufficiently independent of the original decision.

4.4 Managing conflicts of interest in complaints and appeals

A person handling a complaint or appeal must disclose any relevant competing interest.

Where a competing interest could reasonably affect impartiality, the individual should recuse themselves and the matter should be assigned to an alternative editor, independent adviser, or appropriate representative of the publisher or journal owner.

The journal should document the appointment of the alternative decision-maker and the reasons for the reassignment where relevant.

4.5 Handling complaints that involve misconduct

If a complaint contains a credible allegation of research or publication misconduct, the journal should identify the allegation clearly and determine whether a separate assessment under its Allegations of Misconduct Policy is necessary.

The journal may coordinate the two procedures to avoid unnecessary duplication, while ensuring that the complaint about the journal's conduct and the allegation about research integrity are assessed on their respective merits.

Where appropriate, the journal may contact the relevant research institution or another competent body.

4.6 Handling appeals that reveal procedural errors

If an appeal identifies a material procedural error, the journal should determine whether the error could have affected the original decision.

Where the error is substantiated, appropriate action may include a new editorial assessment, additional peer review, reconsideration by an independent editor, or another proportionate remedy.

The journal should not automatically reverse a decision solely because an irregularity occurred. The remedy should reflect the significance of the error and its relationship to the decision.

4.7 Monitoring and improving editorial practices

The editorial office should periodically review the handling of complaints and appeals to identify recurring problems, inconsistencies, or opportunities for improvement.

Where appropriate, the journal may review:

Patterns of delays in editorial handling.
Repeated complaints concerning the same procedural issue.
Consistency in the application of editorial policies.
The adequacy of communication with authors and reviewers.
Compliance with confidentiality requirements.
The independence of appeal and complaint handling.
Whether website policies and submission instructions accurately reflect actual practice.

Any identified deficiencies should be addressed through appropriate revisions to editorial procedures, staff guidance, training, or published policies.

Confidential case details should not be disclosed unnecessarily during this review.

4.8 Policy review and implementation

The Editor-in-Chief and journal management should periodically review this policy and ensure that the editorial team understands its responsibilities.

The policy should be updated when relevant COPE guidance, the journal's governance arrangements, or its editorial practices change.

The published version must accurately describe the complaint and appeal channels, decision-making authority, escalation route, and operational timeframes adopted by IJASC.

References and Related Resources

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices.

https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing

COPE provides guidance for journals on establishing transparent and fair processes for complaints and appeals. IJASC should apply relevant guidance in a manner consistent with the journal's actual editorial procedures and governance arrangements.

Related IJASC Policies

Allegations of Misconduct.
Authorship and Contributorship.
Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests.
Peer Review Processes.
Ethical Oversight and Research Ethics.
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections.
Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Retraction.

Implementation note: This policy should be approved by the journal's management before publication. The journal must verify the official complaints contact, independent escalation mechanism, authority for deciding appeals, and record-retention procedure. Any operational timeframes should be adopted explicitly and applied consistently.