Complaints and Appeals Policy

1. Purpose

The Journal of Contemporary Social Issues (JCSI) is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, objectively, confidentially and without retaliation.

This policy explains how authors, reviewers, readers, editors, research participants, institutions and other interested parties may raise concerns regarding the journal’s editorial processes, published content, staff conduct or publication decisions.

2. Scope

This policy covers complaints concerning:

  • Editorial procedures;

  • Unreasonable editorial delays;

  • Peer-review procedures;

  • Conduct of editors, reviewers or journal staff;

  • Conflicts of interest;

  • Confidentiality breaches;

  • Authorship or contributorship disputes;

  • Plagiarism, duplicate publication or citation manipulation;

  • Fabrication, falsification or image manipulation;

  • Ethical approval or informed-consent concerns;

  • Discrimination, harassment or inappropriate communication;

  • Copyright or licensing concerns;

  • Data availability or research-integrity concerns;

  • Corrections, expressions of concern or retractions;

  • Website or metadata inaccuracies;

  • Undeclared use of generative artificial intelligence;

  • Failure to follow a published journal policy; and

  • Editorial decisions where the appellant believes that a material procedural or scholarly error occurred.

3. General Principles

All complaints and appeals will be handled according to the following principles:

  • Fairness and impartiality;

  • Confidentiality;

  • Timely communication;

  • Proper documentation;

  • Opportunity for the concerned parties to respond;

  • Management of conflicts of interest;

  • Protection against retaliation;

  • Respectful communication; and

  • Preservation of the integrity of the scholarly record.

Submitting a complaint or appeal will not disadvantage an author in any current or future submission.

4. How to Submit a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing to:

Journal Manager
Journal of Contemporary Social Issues
Email: admin@srdikr.com

The subject line should state:

Complaint: [manuscript ID, article title or brief description]

A complaint should include:

  1. The complainant’s full name and contact information;

  2. The manuscript ID, article title,or official article URL.

  3. A clear description of the concern;

  4. Relevant dates and correspondence;

  5. Supporting documents or evidence;

  6. The policy or procedure believed to have been breached, where known; and

  7. The resolution requested.

Anonymous allegations may be considered when they contain sufficient specific and verifiable evidence. However, anonymous complaints may be more difficult to investigate fully.

5. Initial Assessment

The journal will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within five working days.

The Journal Manager will conduct an initial assessment to determine:

  • Whether the matter falls within the journal’s responsibility;

  • Whether sufficient information has been provided;

  • Whether immediate action is needed to protect participants or the scholarly record;

  • Whether a conflict of interest exists; and

  • Who should conduct the investigation.

The journal may request additional information before beginning a full investigation.

6. Investigation

Complaints will ordinarily be investigated by an editor or senior representative who was not directly involved in the matter.

The person whose conduct or decision is questioned will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond, unless doing so would create a serious risk to participants, evidence or legal obligations.

The investigation may include:

  • Reviewing manuscript records and correspondence;

  • Examining peer-review reports;

  • Checking editorial histories and decision records;

  • Reviewing plagiarism or similarity reports;

  • Requesting raw data or original images;

  • Consulting independent subject experts;

  • Contacting relevant institutions, ethics committees or funders; and

  • Following applicable COPE guidance and flowcharts.

7. Timeframes

The journal aims to:

  • Acknowledge a complaint within five working days;

  • Provide an initial assessment within fifteen working days; and

  • Provide a reasoned outcome within thirty working days.

Complex matters involving institutions, multiple parties, research misconduct or legal issues may require additional time.

When an investigation cannot be completed within thirty working days, the complainant will be informed of the delay and, where possible, the revised timeframe. The journal normally aims to conclude complex cases within sixty working days.

8. Possible Outcomes

Depending on the circumstances, an outcome may include:

  • An explanation of the journal’s procedure;

  • An apology;

  • Correction of a website or metadata error;

  • Reconsideration of a manuscript;

  • Appointment of a new editor or reviewer;

  • Additional peer review;

  • Correction of a published article;

  • Publication of an expression of concern;

  • Retraction of an article;

  • Removal of an editor or reviewer from a case;

  • Warning or removal of a reviewer or editorial-board member;

  • Referral to an institution, ethics committee or funder;

  • Rejection of an unsupported complaint; or

  • No further action where the journal’s procedures were properly followed.

The complainant will receive a written explanation of the outcome, subject to confidentiality, privacy and legal restrictions.

9. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

An appeal is not a request for another opportunity to rewrite a rejected manuscript. It must demonstrate that a material error occurred in the review or decision-making process.

Valid grounds for appeal may include:

  • A significant factual misunderstanding;

  • Evidence that a reviewer made a material technical error;

  • Evidence that the journal did not follow its stated peer-review procedure;

  • A material conflict of interest that was not properly managed;

  • Evidence of discrimination or inappropriate conduct; or

  • Important information that was available at the time of the decision but was overlooked.

Disagreement with the reviewers’ conclusions alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal.

10. Submitting an Appeal

An appeal should be submitted within thirty calendar days of the editorial decision.

It must include:

  • The manuscript ID and title;

  • The decision being appealed;

  • A concise explanation of the alleged error;

  • A point-by-point response to the relevant reviewer or editor comments;

  • Supporting evidence; and

  • The outcome requested.

Authors should not submit a revised version as a new manuscript while an appeal is under consideration.

11. Appeal Review

Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an uninvolved senior editor.

Where the original decision was made by the Editor-in-Chief, the appeal will be assigned to another suitably qualified and uninvolved senior editor or publisher representative.

The appeal reviewer may:

  • Uphold the original decision;

  • Seek an additional independent review;

  • Return the manuscript to the editorial process;

  • Revise the original decision; or

  • Confirm that no further appeal will be considered.

Normally, only one appeal will be considered for each manuscript.

The decision following the appeal will be final within the journal’s internal process.

12. Complaints Against an Editor or the Editor-in-Chief

A complaint concerning an editor will not be handled by that editor.

A complaint concerning the Editor-in-Chief should be submitted to the publisher through admin@srdikr.com with the subject:

Confidential Complaint Concerning the Editor-in-Chief

The publisher will assign the matter to an uninvolved senior person or independent adviser with appropriate expertise.

13. Post-Publication Complaints

Concerns about a published article may be raised at any time.

The journal will assess whether the matter requires:

  • A silent technical metadata correction;

  • A formal correction notice;

  • An editorial note;

  • An expression of concern;

  • A retraction; or

  • No action.

Changes affecting the meaning, conclusions, authorship or integrity of an article will not be made without a transparent notice linked to the original article.

14. Complaints Involving Research Misconduct

The journal will assess allegations of research misconduct but will not substitute for an author’s institution in conducting a formal institutional investigation.

Where appropriate, the journal may contact:

  • The author’s institution;

  • An institutional research-integrity office;

  • An ethics review committee;

  • A funding agency;

  • Another journal; or

  • An appropriate legal or regulatory body.

The journal may publish an expression of concern while an external investigation is pending when readers need to be alerted to potentially unreliable content.

15. Confidentiality and Record Retention

Complaint and appeal records will be accessible only to persons who require the information to assess or resolve the matter.

Information may be shared with institutions, experts or authorities when necessary for a fair investigation or when required by law.

The journal will maintain appropriate records of complaints, evidence, correspondence, decisions and actions taken.

16. Abusive or Vexatious Communications

The journal will consider complaints made in good faith, including critical complaints.

However, communications containing threats, harassment, discriminatory language, repeated abusive content or knowingly false allegations may be restricted.

A complaint will not be dismissed merely because it is strongly expressed, provided that it raises a substantive and supportable concern.

17. Policy Review

This policy will be reviewed periodically to ensure consistency with recognized publication-ethics guidance and the journal’s operational procedures.