Complaints and Appeals

1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku (JIP) is committed to maintaining fairness, transparency, accountability, editorial independence, and integrity throughout its scholarly publication process.

The journal recognizes the right of authors, reviewers, readers, research participants, and other stakeholders to raise legitimate concerns regarding editorial decisions, publication procedures, ethical conduct, and journal management.

All complaints and appeals will be assessed objectively, respectfully, confidentially, and without discrimination or retaliation.

This policy has been developed with reference to the Core Practices and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly those concerning complaints and appeals, editorial independence, conflicts of interest, and the investigation of publication ethics concerns.

The journal seeks to ensure that complaints and appeals are handled through fair procedures while protecting the rights of all parties involved.

2. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to complaints and appeals relating to:

  • Editorial decisions, including manuscript rejection.

  • Editorial assessment and peer review procedures.

  • Alleged unfair treatment or discrimination.

  • Unreasonable or inappropriate editorial conduct.

  • Potential conflicts of interest involving editors or reviewers.

  • Alleged breaches of confidentiality.

  • Delays or procedural irregularities in manuscript handling.

  • Disputes concerning the application of journal policies.

  • Publication ethics concerns and post-publication editorial actions.

  • Journal management practices that may affect the fairness or integrity of publication.

Complaints involving suspected research or publication misconduct may also be handled under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

3. General Principles

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku applies the following principles when considering complaints and appeals.

3.1 Fairness and Impartiality

All complaints and appeals must be evaluated fairly and without prejudice.

Decisions must be based on relevant evidence, journal policies, scholarly considerations, and applicable ethical standards.

3.2 Editorial Independence

The journal protects editorial decision-making from inappropriate institutional, commercial, financial, personal, or other external influence.

Appeals will be considered on their merits and will not automatically result in reversal of the original editorial decision.

3.3 Confidentiality

Information relating to complaints and appeals will be treated confidentially to the extent consistent with a fair assessment, necessary consultation, legal obligations, and appropriate communication of outcomes.

3.4 Transparency

The journal will provide information about the applicable complaints and appeals procedures and communicate relevant outcomes to the parties concerned.

3.5 Protection Against Retaliation

Individuals who raise concerns in good faith must not be subjected to retaliation within the journal's editorial processes.

3.6 Proportionality

Responses to complaints and appeals must be appropriate to the nature, seriousness, and available evidence of the concern.

4. Types of Complaints

4.1 Complaints Regarding Editorial Decisions

Authors may submit complaints concerning editorial decisions when they believe that:

  • A material procedural error occurred.

  • Relevant information was overlooked.

  • The decision was affected by an identifiable conflict of interest.

  • The manuscript was assessed using inappropriate or inconsistent criteria.

  • There is credible evidence of bias or unfair treatment.

A disagreement with an editorial decision, without supporting evidence or substantive reasoning, does not automatically justify reconsideration.

4.2 Complaints Regarding Peer Review

Complaints may concern the fairness, professionalism, confidentiality, or integrity of peer review.

Examples include:

  • Inappropriate or discriminatory reviewer comments.

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

  • Breaches of manuscript confidentiality.

  • Suspected reviewer identity manipulation.

  • Misuse of unpublished manuscript content.

  • Material irregularities in reviewer selection or assessment.

The editorial team will examine whether the reported concern materially affected the fairness or integrity of the review process.

4.3 Complaints Regarding Editorial Conduct

Complaints may be submitted when editors or editorial personnel are alleged to have acted improperly.

Potential concerns include:

  • Abuse of editorial authority.

  • Unprofessional communication.

  • Undisclosed competing interests.

  • Inappropriate influence on editorial decisions.

  • Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.

  • Discriminatory treatment of authors or reviewers.

Complaints involving an editor must be assessed by an appropriate individual who is not implicated in the matter.

4.4 Complaints Regarding Publication Ethics

Complaints may involve plagiarism, authorship disputes, data fabrication, falsification, unethical research, duplicate publication, or other research integrity concerns.

Such cases may require investigation under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy and relevant COPE guidance.

4.5 Complaints Regarding Journal Management

Stakeholders may raise concerns regarding the transparency, accessibility, consistency, or implementation of journal policies.

These may include concerns about submission procedures, publication fees, copyright information, editorial communication, or other aspects of journal management.

5. Submission of Complaints

Complaints should be submitted in writing through the journal's official editorial contact channels.

A complaint should contain sufficient information to permit an appropriate assessment.

Where applicable, the complainant should provide:

  1. Full name and contact information.

  2. Manuscript title and submission identification number.

  3. A clear description of the complaint.

  4. Relevant dates and correspondence.

  5. Supporting documentation or evidence.

  6. The specific journal policy or procedure believed to have been breached.

  7. The outcome or corrective action requested.

Complaints should be expressed professionally and supported by relevant facts.

Anonymous complaints may be considered when they contain sufficiently credible and specific information, particularly where research integrity or serious ethical concerns are involved.

6. Initial Assessment of Complaints

Upon receipt of a complaint, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor will conduct an initial assessment.

The assessment will determine:

  • Whether the complaint falls within the journal's responsibilities.

  • Whether sufficient information has been provided.

  • Whether the matter concerns an editorial decision, procedural issue, ethical concern, or another category.

  • Whether any conflict of interest requires reassignment.

  • Whether further information or investigation is necessary.

The editorial office may request additional information from the complainant.

Where the matter falls outside the journal's authority, the complainant may be directed to an appropriate institution or responsible body.

Complaints that are demonstrably unfounded may be closed following a documented assessment.

7. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

7.1 Right to Appeal

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they can demonstrate a substantive reason for appeal.

An appeal should identify a possible factual error, procedural irregularity, material misunderstanding, or other issue that could reasonably affect the original decision.

The appeal process is not intended to provide unlimited opportunities for manuscript reconsideration.

7.2 Submission of an Appeal

An appeal should be submitted by the corresponding author through the official editorial communication channel.

The appeal should include:

  • Manuscript title and identification number.

  • Date of the editorial decision.

  • Specific grounds for the appeal.

  • A clear explanation of the alleged error or irregularity.

  • Relevant supporting evidence.

  • A concise explanation of the reconsideration requested.

Where the appeal concerns reviewer comments, authors should identify the specific points in dispute and explain their scientific or methodological basis.

7.3 Preliminary Review

The Editor-in-Chief or an independent designated editor will determine whether the appeal presents sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

Appeals based solely on dissatisfaction with rejection, without substantive supporting reasons, may be declined.

7.4 Independent Reassessment

When an appeal raises credible concerns, the journal may arrange an independent reassessment.

Depending on the circumstances, this may involve:

  • Re-examination of the manuscript and editorial record.

  • Consultation with another editor.

  • Review of relevant reviewer comments.

  • Additional independent peer review.

  • Assessment of potential conflicts of interest.

  • Examination of possible procedural errors.

The individual responsible for reassessment should be appropriately independent of the matter under appeal.

7.5 Appeal Outcomes

Following reassessment, the journal may:

  1. Uphold the original editorial decision.

  2. Reconsider the manuscript through an additional editorial assessment.

  3. Request further peer review.

  4. Invite a revised manuscript for consideration.

  5. Modify or reverse the original decision where justified.

An invitation to revise or reconsider a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

The outcome will be communicated to the corresponding author with an appropriate explanation.

8. Complaints Against Editors

Complaints involving an editor must not be investigated solely by the individual concerned.

When a complaint concerns a handling editor, the Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor may oversee the assessment.

When the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it should be referred to an appropriate independent authority within the journal's governance or publishing structure.

The responsible authority must consider any competing interests and ensure that the investigation is conducted fairly.

Where necessary, an external expert or relevant institutional body may be consulted.

The journal will seek to prevent individuals implicated in a complaint from influencing its investigation or outcome.

9. Complaints Against Reviewers

The journal expects reviewers to act professionally, objectively, confidentially, and in accordance with established publication ethics standards.

Complaints concerning reviewers may involve inappropriate language, bias, confidentiality violations, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or suspected manipulation of the review process.

The editorial team will examine the available evidence and determine whether corrective action is warranted.

Possible responses include:

  • Requesting clarification from the reviewer.

  • Disregarding an inappropriate or compromised review.

  • Seeking an additional independent review.

  • Reassigning the manuscript.

  • Discontinuing the reviewer's involvement in the manuscript.

  • Taking further appropriate editorial action.

Reviewer identities and confidential review information will be protected in accordance with the journal's applicable peer review policy.

10. Complaints Concerning Published Articles

Concerns raised after publication will be evaluated according to their nature and potential impact on the scholarly record.

Where appropriate, the journal may initiate a post-publication assessment.

Possible outcomes include:

10.1 No Further Action

When the concern is not substantiated or does not warrant editorial intervention, the journal may close the case with appropriate documentation.

10.2 Correction

A correction may be published when a significant error can be corrected without invalidating the article's principal findings or conclusions.

10.3 Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when serious questions regarding the reliability or integrity of an article remain unresolved.

10.4 Retraction

Retraction may be considered when an article's findings or conclusions are unreliable, or when other grounds for retraction are established under the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

10.5 Article Removal

Removal will be considered only in exceptional circumstances involving compelling legal, privacy, or safety concerns.

All post-publication actions must follow the journal's applicable correction and retraction policies.

11. Conflicts of Interest in Complaint Handling

Individuals involved in handling complaints or appeals must disclose any relevant competing interests.

A conflict may arise from:

  • Personal or professional relationships.

  • Institutional affiliations.

  • Financial interests.

  • Academic competition.

  • Previous involvement in the disputed editorial decision.

  • Other circumstances that could compromise impartiality.

Individuals with material conflicts should withdraw from the relevant assessment or decision-making process.

The journal will designate an appropriate independent individual or authority when necessary.

12. Confidentiality and Data Protection

The journal will handle complaint-related correspondence, evidence, and personal information responsibly.

Access to confidential records will be restricted to individuals who require the information for legitimate editorial, institutional, or legal purposes.

Information may be shared with relevant institutions or authorities when necessary for an appropriate investigation.

The journal will avoid unnecessary disclosure of complainant identities, reviewer information, unpublished research materials, and sensitive personal data.

13. Communication and Resolution

The editorial office will seek to acknowledge complaints, communicate relevant procedural information, and provide updates when appropriate.

The time required for resolution will depend on the complexity of the complaint, the availability of evidence, and whether institutional or external consultation is necessary.

The journal will avoid unnecessary delays while ensuring that serious concerns receive adequate examination.

Following the assessment, the complainant will be informed of the outcome to the extent permitted by confidentiality and other applicable requirements.

The journal is not required to disclose confidential reviewer identities, privileged correspondence, or protected personal information.

14. Escalation and External Review

When a complaint cannot be resolved through the journal's internal procedures, the matter may be referred to an appropriate institutional authority, publisher representative, or independent expert.

Research misconduct allegations requiring formal institutional investigation should be referred to the responsible research institution or competent authority.

COPE guidance may be consulted to inform the journal's procedures.

Reference to COPE guidance does not imply that COPE serves as an appeals tribunal for individual manuscript decisions.

15. Record Keeping

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

  • The nature of the complaint.

  • Relevant correspondence.

  • Supporting evidence.

  • Individuals responsible for the assessment.

  • Conflict-of-interest declarations where applicable.

  • Findings and editorial decisions.

  • Corrective actions taken.

  • Communication of the outcome.

Records will be managed in accordance with applicable confidentiality, privacy, and retention requirements.

16. Protection Against Misuse of the Complaints Procedure

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku welcomes legitimate complaints and appeals submitted in good faith.

However, the complaints procedure must not be used to intimidate editors, reviewers, authors, or other individuals.

Repeated submissions that provide no new evidence may be closed after appropriate assessment.

Knowingly false allegations, fabricated evidence, threats, or abusive conduct may be addressed through proportionate editorial or institutional procedures.

The journal will distinguish between malicious conduct and good-faith concerns that ultimately cannot be substantiated.

17. Policy Review and Continuous Improvement

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku will periodically review its complaints and appeals procedures to promote fairness, transparency, and consistency.

The journal may use lessons from substantiated complaints to improve editorial procedures, reviewer guidance, communication practices, and publication policies.

Material revisions to this policy will be communicated through the journal website.

References

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

  2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Guidance and Resources. https://publicationethics.org/guidance

  3. COPE Council. COPE Retraction Guidelines. Version 3, August 2025. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

  4. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12