Complaints and Appeals Policy

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is dedicated to ensuring that its editorial management and scholarly publication practices uphold fairness, transparency, independence, consistency, and academic integrity.

JSR establishes a formal procedure through which authors, peer reviewers, readers, editors, and other relevant stakeholders may raise complaints or submit appeals regarding editorial procedures, peer-review practices, publication decisions, professional conduct, or other matters associated with the journal's scholarly publishing activities.

All complaints and appeals are addressed in accordance with the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, transparency, proportionality, and editorial independence. Where relevant, JSR draws upon the ethical principles and procedural recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Scope of Complaints and Appeals

This policy governs complaints and appeals arising from the editorial management and publication activities of JSR, including, but not limited to, concerns involving:

  • Decisions made during manuscript evaluation;
  • The implementation and integrity of peer-review procedures;
  • Suspected procedural irregularities or unequal treatment;
  • Unjustified delays in editorial handling;
  • Actual or potential conflicts of interest;
  • Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information;
  • Professional or ethical conduct of editors and reviewers;
  • Suspected noncompliance with journal policies;
  • Potential breaches of publication ethics;
  • Disputes involving authorship or scholarly contributions;
  • Research data management, confidentiality, or handling practices;
  • Suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, or research misconduct;
  • Editorial decisions involving corrections or retractions; and
  • Other concerns affecting the integrity, accountability, or governance of JSR.

Complaints and appeals must relate to identifiable editorial procedures, journal policies, or publication decisions. They must not be employed as instruments of intimidation, harassment, threats, or inappropriate influence against authors, reviewers, editors, or other participants in the publication process.

2. Complaints

2.1 Definition of a Complaint

A complaint refers to a formally communicated concern regarding the implementation of editorial procedures, the professional conduct of individuals involved in publication, the application of journal policies, or other issues associated with JSR's editorial governance.

Complaints and appeals serve different purposes.

A complaint primarily addresses procedural matters, professional conduct, editorial practices, or policy implementation. An appeal, by contrast, seeks formal reconsideration of a particular editorial decision.

3. Who May Submit a Complaint

JSR accepts complaints from individuals or organizations with a legitimate interest in the matter, including:

  • Authors;
  • Corresponding Authors;
  • Peer reviewers;
  • Readers;
  • Editorial board members;
  • Editors;
  • Research institutions;
  • Research funding organizations; and
  • Other individuals or organizations possessing relevant information or a legitimate interest in the reported concern.

Complaints must be submitted in good faith and supported, wherever possible, by information or evidence that can reasonably be verified.

To facilitate communication and appropriate examination, JSR may request the complainant's identity and contact details.

4. Grounds for Complaints

A complaint may be considered when reasonable grounds suggest that:

  1. Established editorial procedures were not implemented in accordance with JSR policies.
  2. An editorial decision may have been influenced by an unmanaged conflict of interest.
  3. Confidential information associated with peer review was improperly disclosed.
  4. An editor or reviewer may have engaged in unprofessional or unethical conduct.
  5. An individual may have experienced unfair or inconsistent treatment.
  6. A potential violation of publication ethics has occurred.
  7. Authorship or contributorship may have been inaccurately or improperly attributed.
  8. The peer-review process may have been manipulated or compromised.
  9. Plagiarism or duplicate publication may have taken place.
  10. Concerns exist regarding the handling of a correction or retraction.
  11. A publication-related error may have materially affected the accuracy or integrity of the scholarly record.
  12. Other circumstances provide reasonable justification for editorial examination.

Where a complaint merely expresses dissatisfaction with an editorial decision without presenting relevant evidence or substantive justification, JSR may classify the submission as an appeal or determine that further complaint proceedings are unwarranted.

5. How to Submit a Complaint

Complaints must be communicated through the official correspondence channel designated by JSR.

Where relevant, submissions should provide:

  • The complainant's full name;
  • Contact information;
  • The title of the manuscript or published article;
  • The manuscript identification number or DOI, when available;
  • A clear explanation of the reported concern;
  • Relevant dates or stages of the editorial process;
  • Identification of individuals involved, where applicable; and
  • Available supporting documents or evidence.

If the submitted information is insufficient to assess the concern, JSR may request further clarification or additional documentation.

Anonymous complaints may be examined when they contain sufficiently detailed and credible information to justify meaningful assessment. Nevertheless, anonymity may restrict the journal's ability to obtain clarification or undertake a comprehensive investigation.

6. Initial Assessment of Complaints

Following receipt of a complaint, JSR conducts a preliminary evaluation to establish:

  1. Whether the reported matter falls within the journal's editorial authority.
  2. Whether the concern relates to an identifiable journal policy or editorial procedure.
  3. Whether the available information provides reasonable grounds for further examination.
  4. Whether any individual assigned to handle the complaint has a relevant conflict of interest.
  5. Whether additional explanations should be obtained from the parties concerned.
  6. Whether the case requires referral to the Editor-in-Chief, publisher, research institution, or another competent authority.

When a complaint concerns matters beyond the journal's jurisdiction, JSR may, where practicable, direct the matter to an appropriate institution or responsible party.

An allegation alone does not establish misconduct. JSR will not conclude that an individual has committed an ethical violation or procedural error without appropriate assessment and supporting evidence.

7. Investigation of Complaints

Where the preliminary assessment identifies sufficient justification, JSR may initiate an internal examination of the reported concern.

Such an investigation may involve:

  • Examining editorial documentation and records;
  • Reviewing relevant correspondence;
  • Assessing peer-review reports;
  • Tracing the manuscript's editorial and decision history;
  • Seeking explanations from the authors;
  • Requesting clarification from editors or reviewers;
  • Evaluating supporting evidence and documentation; and
  • Consulting independent editors or relevant disciplinary specialists.

Whenever reasonably possible, individuals responsible for examining complaints must be free from conflicts of interest involving the parties concerned.

If a complaint directly concerns the Editor-in-Chief, its examination must be assigned to an independent editor or another appropriately authorized individual.

8. Complaints Concerning Editors or Reviewers

Complaints involving the professional conduct of an editor or reviewer must be examined independently of the individual against whom the complaint has been submitted.

The editor or reviewer concerned must not participate in evaluating or deciding the outcome of the complaint.

When concerns involve a peer reviewer's conduct, JSR may:

  • Request an explanation from the reviewer;
  • Reevaluate the content or validity of the review report;
  • Appoint a replacement reviewer when evaluation remains ongoing;
  • Exclude the reviewer from further participation in the manuscript's editorial process; or
  • Implement other appropriate editorial measures.

Where the available information indicates a potentially serious ethical breach, JSR may undertake additional examination and, when justified, refer the matter to the reviewer's institution or another relevant authority.

9. Complaints Concerning Editorial Decisions

JSR distinguishes complaints about editorial decision-making procedures from formal appeals against editorial outcomes.

An editorial decision that differs from an author's expectations does not, by itself, demonstrate procedural unfairness or editorial misconduct.

Editorial judgments may legitimately consider:

  • Scholarly quality and analytical rigor;
  • Originality of the research;
  • Novelty and contribution to sociological knowledge;
  • Appropriateness and robustness of the research methodology;
  • Relevance of the research questions and findings;
  • Alignment with the journal's aims and scope;
  • Compliance with research and publication ethics;
  • Assessments provided by peer reviewers; and
  • Other academically justified editorial considerations.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantial procedural error, a significant misunderstanding of their research, or inappropriate considerations may submit an appeal under the procedures outlined below.

10. Appeals

An appeal is a formal submission through which an author requests reconsideration of an editorial decision relating to a submitted manuscript or published article.

The appeal mechanism is not intended to provide additional peer review merely because an author disagrees with reviewers' assessments.

A valid appeal must present substantive reasons that could reasonably call into question the basis or validity of the original editorial decision.

11. Grounds for Appeal

Authors may request reconsideration when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an editorial decision:

  1. Involved a significant error in the application of editorial procedures.
  2. Was influenced by a substantial misunderstanding of the submitted research.
  3. Overlooked important information already available at the time of the decision.
  4. Was affected by a conflict of interest that had not been appropriately addressed.
  5. Relied on considerations unrelated to the manuscript's scholarly merit or research integrity.
  6. Was materially influenced by factual inaccuracies in a peer-review report.
  7. Could reasonably be reconsidered in light of new, relevant, and verifiable evidence.

Disagreement with reviewer evaluations, requests for alternative reviewers, or an author's belief that their research merits acceptance do not independently constitute sufficient justification for an appeal.

12. How to Submit an Appeal

Appeals must be submitted through the official communication channel designated by JSR, within the timeframe established by the journal following notification of the editorial decision.

An appeal should contain:

  • The manuscript identification number;
  • The manuscript title;
  • The specific editorial decision being contested;
  • A clear explanation of the grounds for reconsideration;
  • A reasoned response to the assessments or considerations underlying the decision;
  • Details of any alleged factual inaccuracies or procedural irregularities;
  • Supporting documentation or evidence, where available; and
  • Other information directly relevant to the appeal.

JSR may decline to undertake further examination of appeals that express dissatisfaction without identifying substantive grounds for reconsideration.

13. Appeal Review Process

Appeals are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately designated editor who was not directly involved in the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest.

During the assessment, the responsible editor may:

  1. Confirm and maintain the original editorial decision.
  2. Request additional explanations or documentation from the author.
  3. Obtain an assessment from another editor.
  4. Arrange an additional independent peer review when justified.
  5. Revise the original editorial decision when sufficient grounds are established.
  6. Implement other measures consistent with the journal's editorial policies.

The outcome of an appeal must be determined through consideration of relevant scholarly, procedural, and ethical factors.

Submitting an appeal does not automatically result in a change to the original decision or guarantee acceptance of the manuscript.

14. Additional Peer Review During Appeal

JSR may arrange additional independent peer review when the grounds for an appeal indicate that:

  • A substantial error may have affected the previous editorial evaluation;
  • A reviewer involved in the original assessment had an unmanaged conflict of interest;
  • A review report contained a significant factual inaccuracy;
  • An important scholarly or methodological aspect of the research was insufficiently evaluated; or
  • Further independent assessment is necessary to safeguard the fairness of the editorial process.

The decision to commission additional peer review rests with JSR and does not constitute an automatic entitlement for every appeal.

Reviewers appointed for this purpose must not receive confidential editorial correspondence or other restricted information unless access is necessary for an independent and appropriate assessment.

15. Appeals Against Rejection

Authors may challenge a manuscript rejection decision when their appeal is supported by substantive grounds consistent with this policy.

The appeals procedure does not replace JSR's established manuscript submission and evaluation requirements.

Where an appeal is unsuccessful, authors may submit a substantially revised version of their research as a new manuscript, provided that it satisfies the journal's submission requirements.

Such a submission will undergo a separate editorial evaluation and will not automatically overturn or invalidate the previous rejection decision.

16. Appeals Against Ethical Decisions

Authors may appeal editorial decisions involving suspected breaches of publication ethics by submitting relevant explanations, documentation, or supporting evidence.

In evaluating these appeals, JSR considers:

  • The nature and credibility of the available evidence;
  • Explanations submitted by the parties concerned;
  • Compliance with the journal's established ethical policies;
  • The seriousness and potential consequences of the reported issue;
  • Possible implications for the integrity of the published scholarly record; and
  • Relevant principles and procedural guidance on publication ethics.

Where suspected research misconduct falls within the investigative authority of a university, research institution, or other responsible organization, JSR may request clarification or await the findings of that institution.

Such institutional involvement does not diminish JSR's authority to implement appropriate editorial measures concerning submitted manuscripts or published articles.

17. Confidentiality

JSR is committed to protecting the confidentiality of complaints and appeals to the extent reasonably achievable.

Information relating to a complaint or appeal will be accessible only to individuals whose involvement is necessary for its assessment, investigation, or resolution.

The journal will avoid unnecessary disclosure of confidential information to authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, or external parties.

Confidentiality may be restricted where disclosure is reasonably necessary:

  • To fulfill applicable legal requirements;
  • To preserve the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record;
  • To enable an appropriate investigation;
  • To communicate with a responsible research institution or competent authority; or
  • To address other circumstances justified by relevant legal or ethical obligations.

18. Conflict of Interest in Complaints and Appeals

Editors and other individuals participating in the handling of complaints or appeals must disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.

Any individual whose personal, professional, institutional, or financial interests could reasonably compromise the independence of the process must withdraw from the assessment and decision-making activities concerned.

Where a complaint or appeal directly involves the Editor-in-Chief, responsibility for handling the case must be transferred to an independent editor or another duly authorized individual without a relevant conflict of interest.

19. Protection Against Retaliation

JSR prohibits adverse treatment of individuals solely because they have submitted a complaint or appeal in good faith.

Nevertheless, intentionally false allegations, defamatory statements, intimidation, threats, harassment, or deliberate interference with editorial procedures may be addressed under the journal's applicable policies.

The complaints and appeals mechanism must not be exploited to coerce editors, reviewers, authors, or other stakeholders into reversing or modifying legitimate editorial decisions.

20. Outcomes of Complaints and Appeals

Following appropriate examination, JSR may implement one or more of the following measures:

  • Conclude that the complaint is unsupported by the available evidence;
  • Resolve and close the case after obtaining sufficient clarification;
  • Correct deficiencies or improve existing editorial procedures;
  • Replace an editor or reviewer;
  • Maintain the original editorial decision;
  • Reconsider the initial decision;
  • Refer the manuscript for additional evaluation;
  • Amend the editorial decision;
  • Refer the matter to a responsible institution or competent authority;
  • Initiate further investigation into potential ethical violations;
  • Publish a correction;
  • Issue an Expression of Concern;
  • Retract a published article; or
  • Take other measures justified by the circumstances of the case.

The journal will determine appropriate action in accordance with the nature, available evidence, and seriousness of the identified concern, ensuring that its response remains proportionate.

21. Final Editorial Decision on Appeals

JSR seeks to ensure that authors have access to a fair, independent, and meaningful procedure for requesting reconsideration of editorial decisions.

After an appeal has been evaluated by an editor independent of the original decision, the resulting determination will ordinarily be regarded as final within the journal's editorial process.

Further reconsideration may be permitted only under exceptional circumstances involving:

  • Newly available material evidence;
  • A significant procedural irregularity; or
  • A previously undisclosed conflict of interest.

Repeated appeals that introduce no new substantive information may be closed without additional evaluation.

22. Complaints and Appeals After Publication

JSR accepts complaints or appeals concerning published articles when the reported issues relate to publication procedures, research integrity, or the reliability of the scholarly record.

Post-publication concerns may involve:

  • Errors in scholarly findings or interpretations;
  • Inaccuracies or irregularities in research data;
  • Plagiarism;
  • Duplicate or redundant publication;
  • Authorship or contributorship issues;
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • Ethical approval or research ethics compliance;
  • Research data availability;
  • Manipulation of peer-review procedures; or
  • Other circumstances that may compromise the integrity of a published article.

JSR will examine such matters according to their nature, supporting evidence, and potential consequences.

When justified, the journal may issue:

  • A correction;
  • An editorial note;
  • An Expression of Concern; or
  • A retraction.

All post-publication measures are intended primarily to safeguard the accuracy, credibility, and integrity of the scholarly record.

23. Documentation and Record Keeping

JSR maintains appropriate documentation of complaints and appeals to support accountability, procedural consistency, and continuous improvement in editorial governance.

Records may include:

  • The date on which the complaint or appeal was received;
  • The identities and roles of the parties involved, where available;
  • The nature and substance of the reported concern;
  • Evidence and supporting documentation submitted;
  • Relevant correspondence;
  • Procedures undertaken during evaluation or investigation;
  • The resulting decision;
  • Editorial or administrative actions implemented; and
  • Any subsequent measures or follow-up activities.

These records support consistent case management, institutional accountability, and the ongoing evaluation of the journal's editorial practices.

Confidential information will not be made publicly available unless disclosure is required by applicable law, justified by ethical considerations, or necessary to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

24. Responsibilities of the Parties

24.1 Authors

Authors involved in complaints or appeals are expected to:

  • Present their concerns honestly, responsibly, and professionally;
  • Clearly explain the reasons underlying their complaint or appeal;
  • Submit relevant and verifiable supporting information;
  • Respect the confidentiality of editorial communications and procedures;
  • Avoid deliberately providing inaccurate or misleading statements; and
  • Respect the final determination once the appeals procedure has been completed.

24.2 Editors

Editors are responsible for:

  • Evaluating complaints and appeals objectively and fairly;
  • Safeguarding editorial independence throughout the process;
  • Identifying, disclosing, and appropriately managing conflicts of interest;
  • Protecting confidential information;
  • Ensuring that investigations are proportionate to the concerns raised;
  • Maintaining appropriate documentation of editorial assessments and decisions; and
  • Referring matters beyond the journal's authority to relevant institutions or responsible organizations.

24.3 Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts, editorial correspondence, and review-related information;
  • Provide impartial and evidence-based scholarly assessments;
  • Disclose any relevant conflicts of interest;
  • Refrain from using complaints or appeals to exert inappropriate influence on editorial decisions; and
  • Provide relevant clarification or information when legitimately requested during an editorial investigation.

25. JSR Policy Statement on Complaints and Appeals

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is committed to maintaining an equitable, transparent, independent, consistent, and accountable system for addressing complaints and appeals arising from its editorial and publication activities.

All complaints and appeals are examined on the basis of relevant information, supporting evidence, and established journal policies. Disagreement with an editorial decision does not, in itself, demonstrate misconduct, procedural unfairness, or inappropriate editorial conduct. Requests for reconsideration must therefore present substantive grounds capable of reasonably affecting the original decision.

JSR safeguards the confidentiality of complaints and appeals wherever reasonably possible and ensures that individuals with relevant conflicts of interest are excluded from the evaluation and resolution of the cases concerned.

In addressing suspected violations of publication ethics, JSR may apply relevant principles and procedures recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Where necessary, the journal may also consult or communicate with the academic institution, research organization, or other authority responsible for the research.

This policy is intended not only to provide appropriate mechanisms for resolving complaints and appeals but also to strengthen editorial accountability, protect the independence and fairness of scholarly evaluation, and preserve the credibility, reliability, and integrity of sociological knowledge published by JSR.