DOWNLOAD ARTIKEL TAMPLATE
JOURNAL DETAILS
Appeals and Complaints
Social Sciences Journal (SSJ) is committed to handling appeals and complaints fairly, promptly, confidentially, and without retaliation. This policy provides authors, reviewers, readers, editors, research participants, institutions, and other stakeholders with a transparent mechanism to challenge an editorial decision or raise a concern about the journal's policies, procedures, services, published content, editorial conduct, or publisher. The policy is informed by the COPE guidance on complaints and appeals and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
Appeal A documented request to reconsider a specific editorial or post-publication decision because of a material factual error, procedural irregularity, unmanaged conflict of interest, or significant evidence that was overlooked.
Complaint A documented concern about journal policy, administration, peer-review conduct, editorial behavior, communication, fees, privacy, ethics, publication practice, or the conduct of the publisher.
1. Governing Principles
- Fairness: each matter is assessed on its evidence, substance, and applicable policy—not on the status, nationality, institutional affiliation, reputation, or identity of the person raising it.
- Independence: a person who is the subject of a complaint or materially involved in the original decision must not determine the outcome.
- Confidentiality: information is shared only with persons who need it to assess, investigate, advise on, or resolve the matter, subject to legal and research-integrity obligations.
- No retaliation: a good-faith appeal or complaint will not disadvantage a person's current or future submissions, reviews, employment, institutional relationship, or access to the journal.
- Due process: a person whose decision or conduct is questioned will normally be informed of the material concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
- Proportionality: actions are appropriate to the seriousness, reliability, and potential impact of the evidence.
- Record keeping: the journal retains an appropriate confidential record of the submission, evidence, review, correspondence, and outcome.
2. Editorial Appeals
2.1 Decisions That May Be Appealed
An author may appeal a desk rejection, rejection following peer review, decision on a revised manuscript, authorship-related editorial determination, manuscript withdrawal decision, or a post-publication action such as a correction, expression of concern, or retraction. Acceptance is not guaranteed, and an appeal is not an automatic additional round of peer review.
2.2 Valid Grounds for Appeal
An appeal should identify at least one material issue, such as:
- a significant factual error in the decision letter or reviewer assessment;
- a material departure from the journal's published editorial or peer-review procedure;
- relevant evidence, data, explanation, or manuscript content that was clearly overlooked;
- a credible unmanaged conflict of interest, breach of confidentiality, discriminatory treatment, or inappropriate reviewer or editor conduct;
- a post-publication decision that is disproportionate to, or unsupported by, the available evidence; or
- another serious procedural or ethical problem capable of affecting the outcome.
What is not normally sufficient?
Mere disagreement with the editor's academic judgment, dissatisfaction with a negative reviewer recommendation, repetition of arguments already considered, demands for guaranteed acceptance, or objections unsupported by specific evidence do not normally constitute valid grounds for appeal.
Mere disagreement with the editor's academic judgment, dissatisfaction with a negative reviewer recommendation, repetition of arguments already considered, demands for guaranteed acceptance, or objections unsupported by specific evidence do not normally constitute valid grounds for appeal.
2.3 Time Limit and Submission Requirements
An appeal should normally be submitted within 30 calendar days of the decision. A later appeal may be considered when new evidence becomes available or when exceptional circumstances prevented timely submission. The corresponding author should submit one consolidated appeal on behalf of all authors whenever possible.
An appeal must include:
- manuscript title and OJS submission identification number or published article DOI;
- the decision being appealed and its date;
- specific grounds for appeal, organized clearly and supported by evidence;
- the requested remedy, such as independent reconsideration or correction of a procedural error;
- relevant correspondence or documentation; and
- confirmation that the appeal represents the authors' agreed position, or an explanation of any disagreement.
3. Complaints
A complaint may concern matters including:
| Complaint Area | Examples |
|---|---|
| Editorial procedure | Unreasonable or unexplained delay, inconsistent application of policy, inadequate communication, or procedural irregularity. |
| Editor, reviewer, or staff conduct | Harassment, discriminatory language, bullying, undisclosed conflicts, confidentiality breach, citation coercion, misuse of privileged information, or unprofessional communication. |
| Publication ethics | Plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, authorship abuse, manipulated peer review, unethical research, duplicate publication, or undisclosed competing interests. |
| Published content | Material errors, unreliable findings, copyright concerns, privacy violations, inadequate correction, or disputed post-publication action. |
| Fees and business practice | Undisclosed charges, inconsistent fee information, refund disputes, misleading marketing, or concern that payment influenced editorial treatment. |
| Privacy and accessibility | Improper handling of personal information, inaccessible communication, or an avoidable barrier to participation in the editorial process. |
Anonymous complaints may be considered when they contain sufficient specific and verifiable information. The journal may request clarification or evidence. Abusive, threatening, knowingly false, repetitive, or irrelevant communications may be restricted after the matter has been assessed and the reason for restricting further correspondence has been documented.
4. Review and Resolution Process
5. Independent Handling and Escalation
- Appeal against an assigned editor: reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor who was not materially involved.
- Complaint concerning the Editor-in-Chief: referred to a designated representative of the publisher or an independent senior academic appointed by the publisher.
- Complaint concerning the publisher: referred to an appropriate senior university authority or independent adviser who is not the subject of the complaint.
- Research misconduct allegation: the journal may refer the matter to the relevant institution, ethics committee, funder, regulator, or other competent body because the journal does not have the investigative powers of an employer or public authority.
- Legal, safety, or privacy issue: the matter may be escalated immediately to the publisher and qualified legal or institutional authorities.
6. Possible Outcomes
Depending on the evidence and the nature of the matter, the journal may:
Uphold the original decision with reasons
Reopen editorial consideration
Appoint a new editor or reviewer
Correct a procedural or factual error
Provide an explanation or apology
Revise policy, training, or workflow
Publish a correction or other notice
Refer the matter to a competent body
A successful appeal may result in reconsideration but does not guarantee acceptance. A complaint may be substantiated, partially substantiated, unsubstantiated, unresolved because of insufficient evidence, or referred elsewhere. The reasoned outcome will identify any action that can appropriately be disclosed.
7. Final Internal Review
Normally, one substantive appeal is permitted for each editorial decision. If the appellant or complainant identifies a significant factual error, undisclosed conflict, or serious procedural defect in the first review, they may request a final internal review within 14 calendar days of the outcome. The final review will be conducted by a person not materially involved in the earlier handling whenever feasible.
After the final internal review, the journal's internal process is concluded. This does not prevent a party from approaching an institution, funder, regulator, court, or other competent body where it has jurisdiction. The journal will cooperate with legitimate external processes subject to confidentiality, privacy, and legal obligations.
8. Confidentiality, Privacy, and Non-Retaliation
Appeals and complaints are handled as confidential editorial records. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed when fair investigation requires disclosure, when a serious concern must be referred to an institution or authority, or when disclosure is legally required. Personal information will be limited to what is relevant and handled under the journal's privacy policy.
No person will be penalized for raising a concern in good faith. Deliberately false allegations, fabricated evidence, harassment, threats, or misuse of the procedure may be addressed proportionately after evidence review and an opportunity to respond. Criticism of the journal, disagreement with an editor, or an unsuccessful appeal does not by itself constitute misconduct.
9. How to Submit
Submit the appeal or complaint through the journal's official contact page or the OJS discussion function associated with the manuscript. Use the subject line “Editorial Appeal” or “Formal Complaint”. Include the manuscript or article identification, a concise chronology, specific grounds, supporting evidence, names of relevant parties, any conflict-of-interest concern, and the remedy requested.
Submit an Appeal or Complaint Social Sciences Journal — Universitas Dehasen Bengkulu Journal Contact Page
Reference frameworks: COPE guidance on complaints and appeals; Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Policy version: August 2026.
