Complaints and Appeals Policy

Journal of Advanced Computing and Digital Information Systems (JACDIS) is committed to conducting its editorial and publication processes fairly, transparently, independently, consistently, and in accordance with principles of academic integrity.

JACDIS provides a formal mechanism for authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other relevant parties to submit complaints or appeals concerning editorial processes, publication decisions, peer review, editorial conduct, or other aspects of the journal's publication process.

JACDIS handles complaints and appeals according to the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, transparency, proportionality, and editorial independence. Where appropriate, JACDIS may refer to relevant guidance and procedures developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Scope of Complaints and Appeals

This policy applies to complaints and appeals concerning JACDIS's editorial and publication processes, including but not limited to:

editorial decisions concerning manuscripts;
the peer-review process;
alleged procedural errors or unfairness in the editorial process;
unreasonable delays in the editorial process;
alleged conflicts of interest;
breaches of confidentiality;
conduct of editors or reviewers;
alleged violations of journal policies;
alleged publication ethics violations;
authorship or contributorship concerns;
research data or data-handling concerns;
alleged plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research misconduct;
decisions concerning corrections or retractions; and
other matters directly related to the integrity and governance of JACDIS.

Complaints and appeals must concern a journal process, policy, or decision and must not be used to intimidate, threaten, or exert undue pressure on editors, reviewers, authors, or other individuals involved in the publication process.

2. Complaints

2.1 Definition of a Complaint

A complaint is a formal concern submitted to JACDIS regarding an aspect of the editorial process, the conduct of an individual involved in publication, the application of a journal policy, or another matter related to the governance and publication of the journal.

A complaint is distinct from an appeal.

A complaint primarily concerns process, conduct, procedure, or policy implementation, whereas an appeal is a formal request to reconsider a specific editorial decision.

3. Who May Submit a Complaint

A complaint may be submitted by:

an author;
a Corresponding Author;
a reviewer;
a reader;
a member of the editorial board;
an editor;
a research institution;
a funding organization; or
another party with a legitimate interest in or relevant information concerning the matter reported.

Complaints must be submitted in good faith and should be based on information or evidence that can reasonably be substantiated.

JACDIS may request the identity and contact information of the complainant to facilitate appropriate communication and investigation.

4. Grounds for Complaints

A complaint may be submitted when there is reasonable concern that:

editorial procedures were not followed in accordance with journal policy;
an editorial decision was affected by a conflict of interest;
the confidentiality of the peer-review process was breached;
a reviewer or editor acted unprofessionally or unethically;
an individual was treated unfairly or inconsistently;
a publication ethics violation may have occurred;
authorship or contributorship may have been improperly assigned;
peer review may have been manipulated;
plagiarism or duplicate publication may have occurred;
there is a concern regarding a correction or retraction;
an error in the publication process materially affects the scholarly record; or
another matter exists that reasonably warrants editorial review.

A complaint based solely on disagreement with an editorial decision, without substantive grounds or relevant evidence, may instead be treated as an appeal or may not be pursued as a complaint.

5. How to Submit a Complaint

Complaints must be submitted through the official communication channel designated by JACDIS.

A complaint should include, where applicable:

the complainant's name;
contact information;
the manuscript or article title;
the manuscript ID or DOI, if available;
a clear description of the concern;
the relevant dates or stages of the editorial process;
the individuals involved, where relevant; and
supporting evidence or documentation, if available.

JACDIS may request additional information if the initial submission does not provide sufficient information for evaluation.

Anonymous complaints may be considered when the information provided is sufficiently specific and credible to allow meaningful evaluation. However, anonymity may limit the journal's ability to seek clarification or conduct a complete investigation.

6. Initial Assessment of Complaints

Upon receiving a complaint, JACDIS will conduct an initial assessment to determine:

whether the matter falls within the journal's authority;
whether the concern relates to a journal policy or process;
whether sufficient information or evidence exists to warrant further action;
whether any individual involved in handling the complaint has a conflict of interest;
whether clarification should be sought from the relevant parties; and
whether the matter should be escalated to the Editor-in-Chief, publisher, research institution, or another appropriate party.

Complaints outside the journal's authority may be referred to an appropriate party where feasible.

JACDIS will not determine that an individual has committed an error, misconduct, or other violation solely on the basis of an unverified complaint.

7. Investigation of Complaints

When a complaint provides sufficient grounds for further action, JACDIS may conduct an internal investigation.

The investigation may include:

reviewing editorial records;
examining correspondence;
reviewing peer-review reports;
examining the manuscript's editorial history;
requesting clarification from authors;
requesting clarification from reviewers or editors;
reviewing supporting documentation; and
consulting independent editors or subject-matter experts.

Individuals responsible for investigating a complaint should, where reasonably possible, have no conflict of interest with the parties involved.

When a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the matter must be handled by an independent editor or other appropriately authorized party.

8. Complaints Concerning Editors or Reviewers

Complaints concerning an editor or reviewer will be handled independently of the individual who is the subject of the complaint.

An editor or reviewer who is the subject of a complaint must not participate in decisions concerning that complaint.

When a complaint concerns reviewer conduct, JACDIS may:

request clarification from the reviewer;
reassess the reviewer's comments or report;
replace the reviewer if the peer-review process is still ongoing;
remove the reviewer from the editorial process for the manuscript; or
take other editorial action considered appropriate.

If a complaint indicates a potentially serious ethical violation, JACDIS may conduct a further investigation and, where appropriate, refer the matter to the relevant institution.

9. Complaints Concerning Editorial Decisions

A complaint concerning an editorial decision will be distinguished from an appeal.

JACDIS does not consider an editorial decision that does not meet an author's expectations to be evidence of an unfair editorial process.

Editorial decisions may be based on:

scientific quality;
originality;
novelty;
methodological soundness;
relevance;
journal scope;
ethical compliance;
reviewer assessments; and
other legitimate editorial considerations.

If an author believes that an editorial decision was based on a procedural error, a material misunderstanding, or irrelevant considerations, the author may submit an appeal in accordance with the Appeals Policy below.

10. Appeals

10.1 Definition of an Appeal

An appeal is a formal request by an author for reconsideration of an editorial decision concerning a manuscript or published article.

An appeal is not a mechanism for requesting an additional round of peer review solely because an author disagrees with reviewer comments.

An appeal must identify substantive grounds that could reasonably affect the validity of the original editorial decision.

11. Grounds for Appeal

An author may submit an appeal when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an editorial decision:

was based on a material procedural error;
resulted from a material misunderstanding of the manuscript;
failed to consider important information that was available when the decision was made;
was affected by a conflict of interest that was not appropriately managed;
relied on considerations unrelated to the scientific quality or integrity of the manuscript;
was materially influenced by factual errors in a reviewer report; or
may reasonably be affected by new, relevant, and verifiable information.

General disagreement with reviewers, a desire to obtain different reviewers, or a belief that the manuscript should have been accepted, without substantive justification, does not by itself constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

12. How to Submit an Appeal

An appeal must be submitted through the official communication channel designated by JACDIS within the period specified by the journal after the editorial decision is issued.

The appeal should include:

the manuscript ID;
the manuscript title;
the editorial decision being appealed;
the grounds for the appeal;
a response to the reasons or comments underlying the decision;
an explanation of any alleged factual or procedural errors;
supporting evidence, where available; and
any additional information relevant to the appeal.

An appeal that merely expresses disagreement without providing substantive grounds may be declined without further review.

13. Appeal Review Process

An appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor who was not directly involved in the original decision and who has no conflict of interest in the matter.

In reviewing an appeal, the editor may:

uphold the original decision;
request additional clarification from the author;
seek an assessment from another editor;
request an independent additional review where appropriate;
modify the editorial decision when there are sufficient grounds; or
take another action consistent with journal policy.

The appeal decision will be based on relevant scientific, procedural, and ethical considerations.

Submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the original editorial decision will be changed or that the manuscript will be accepted.

14. Additional Peer Review During Appeal

JACDIS may request additional peer review when an appeal indicates that:

a substantive error may have occurred in the previous evaluation;
a previous reviewer had a conflict of interest;
a reviewer report contains a material factual error;
an important scientific aspect of the manuscript was not adequately evaluated; or
an additional independent assessment is necessary to ensure a fair editorial process.

Additional peer review is at the discretion of the journal and is not automatically provided for every appeal.

Additional reviewers should not be given access to confidential editorial communications that are not necessary for conducting an independent assessment.

15. Appeals Against Rejection

Authors may appeal a rejection decision when substantive grounds exist as described in this policy.

An appeal is not intended to replace the regular submission process.

If an appeal is unsuccessful, an author may submit a substantially revised manuscript as a new submission, provided that it meets the journal's submission requirements.

A new submission will be treated as a new manuscript and does not guarantee that the previous editorial decision will be reversed.

16. Appeals Against Ethical Decisions

When an editorial decision concerns a suspected publication ethics violation, an author may appeal by providing relevant evidence or an explanation.

JACDIS will consider:

the available evidence;
explanations provided by the relevant parties;
consistency with journal policies;
the seriousness of the concern;
the potential impact on the integrity of the scholarly record; and
relevant publication ethics guidance.

When a case involves suspected research misconduct that falls within the authority of a research institution, JACDIS may request or await clarification from that institution. This does not remove the journal's editorial authority to take appropriate action concerning a manuscript or published article.

17. Confidentiality

JACDIS will maintain the confidentiality of complaints and appeals to the extent reasonably possible.

Information concerning a complaint or appeal will be shared only with individuals who require the information for evaluation, investigation, or decision-making purposes.

JACDIS will not unnecessarily disclose confidential information to authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, or third parties.

Confidentiality may be waived or limited when disclosure is necessary:

to comply with legal obligations;
to protect the integrity of the scholarly record;
to conduct a necessary investigation;
to communicate with an appropriate institution or authority; or
in other circumstances justified by applicable ethical or legal requirements.

18. Conflict of Interest in Complaints and Appeals

Any editor or other individual handling a complaint or appeal must disclose any relevant conflict of interest.

An individual with a conflict of interest that could reasonably affect the independence of the process must recuse themselves from handling the matter.

If a complaint or appeal directly concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the matter must be handled by an independent editor or other appropriately authorized individual who has no relevant interest in the case.

19. Protection Against Retaliation

JACDIS will not take adverse action against an individual solely because that individual submits a complaint or appeal in good faith.

However, knowingly false reports, defamatory allegations, intimidation, threats, harassment, or deliberate disruption of the editorial process may be addressed in accordance with applicable journal policies.

Complaints and appeals must not be used to pressure editors, reviewers, authors, or other parties into changing a legitimate editorial decision.

20. Outcomes of Complaints and Appeals

Following the review of a complaint or appeal, JACDIS may take one or more of the following actions:

determine that the complaint is unfounded;
close the matter following clarification;
correct or improve an editorial process;
replace a reviewer or editor;
uphold the original editorial decision;
reconsider the editorial decision;
return the manuscript for further evaluation;
modify the editorial decision;
refer the matter to an appropriate institution or authority;
conduct a further ethics investigation;
issue a correction;
publish an Expression of Concern;
retract a published article; or
take another action appropriate to the circumstances.

JACDIS will select an action that is proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the matter identified.

21. Final Editorial Decision on Appeals

JACDIS seeks to provide a fair and meaningful appeal process for editorial decisions.

Once an appeal has been reviewed by an editor independent of the original decision, the resulting decision is generally considered final at the journal's editorial level.

A further appeal will normally be considered only when there is:

new material evidence;
a significant procedural error; or
a previously undisclosed conflict of interest.

Repeated appeals without new substantive information may be closed without further substantive consideration.

22. Complaints and Appeals After Publication

Complaints or appeals may be submitted concerning published articles when they relate to the integrity or publication process of the article.

Post-publication concerns may include:

scientific errors;
data errors;
plagiarism;
duplicate publication;
authorship;
conflicts of interest;
ethical approval;
data availability;
peer-review manipulation; or
other issues that may affect the integrity of the published article.

JACDIS will evaluate such concerns according to their nature and seriousness.

Where appropriate, the journal may publish:

a correction;
an editorial note;
an Expression of Concern; or
a retraction.

The primary objective of post-publication action is to protect the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.

23. Documentation and Record Keeping

JACDIS will maintain relevant records concerning complaints and appeals, including:

the date of receipt;
the identity and role of relevant parties, where available;
the nature of the concern;
evidence submitted;
relevant communications;
the evaluation process;
the decision reached;
actions taken; and
any required follow-up.

Such records are maintained to promote consistency, accountability, and continuous improvement of the journal's editorial practices.

Confidential information will not be publicly disclosed unless disclosure is necessary for ethical or legal reasons or to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

24. Responsibilities of the Parties

24.1 Authors

Authors are responsible for:

submitting complaints or appeals honestly and professionally;
providing clear reasons for their concerns;
providing relevant supporting evidence;
respecting the confidentiality of the editorial process;
refraining from knowingly providing misleading information; and
respecting the final outcome once the appeal process has been completed.

24.2 Editors

Editors are responsible for:

handling complaints and appeals fairly;
maintaining editorial independence;
avoiding conflicts of interest;
maintaining confidentiality;
conducting proportionate investigations;
documenting relevant decisions; and
referring matters to appropriate parties when they fall outside the journal's authority.

24.3 Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for:

maintaining confidentiality;
providing objective assessments;
disclosing conflicts of interest;
not using complaints or appeals to improperly influence the editorial process; and
providing relevant information when requested by the editor during an investigation.

25. JACDIS Policy Statement on Complaints and Appeals

JACDIS is committed to providing a fair, transparent, independent, consistent, and accountable mechanism for handling complaints and appeals.

Complaints and appeals will be evaluated on the basis of relevant evidence and in accordance with the journal's policies. JACDIS does not consider disagreement with an editorial decision, by itself, to constitute evidence of editorial misconduct or an unfair editorial process. Appeals must identify substantive grounds that could reasonably affect the original decision.

JACDIS will maintain the confidentiality of complaints and appeals to the extent reasonably possible and will ensure that individuals with relevant conflicts of interest do not participate in decisions concerning the cases in which they have a conflict.

For matters involving suspected publication ethics violations, JACDIS may apply relevant guidance and procedures of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and, where appropriate, communicate with the institution or organization responsible for the research.

The purpose of this policy is not only to resolve complaints and appeals but also to ensure that JACDIS's editorial decisions are made fairly and that the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record are protected.