Complaints and Appeals

1. Introduction

Magistra Andalusia: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra (MAJIS) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, accountable, and respectful publication process for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and other participants in scholarly publishing.

The journal recognises that concerns or disagreements may arise in relation to editorial decisions, peer-review procedures, publication processes, journal policies, editorial conduct, staff conduct, or the handling of publication-ethics matters. MAJIS therefore provides a formal mechanism through which such concerns can be raised, assessed, and resolved.

This policy distinguishes between complaints and appeals. A complaint concerns dissatisfaction with an aspect of the journal, its processes, policies, editorial conduct, staff, editorial board, or publication services. An appeal is a formal request by an author or authors for reconsideration of an editorial decision concerning a manuscript.

MAJIS is committed to handling complaints and appeals impartially, confidentially, consistently, and within reasonable timeframes. The journal will consider relevant evidence and will seek to ensure that decisions are based on appropriate editorial and publication-ethics principles rather than personal, institutional, commercial, or other inappropriate considerations.

This policy has been developed with reference to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practice on Complaints and Appeals, relevant COPE guidance, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. COPE identifies complaints and appeals as a core area in which journals should maintain clearly described procedures for handling complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board, or publisher.

This policy does not imply COPE approval, certification, or endorsement of MAJIS.

2. Description

2.1 Complaints

A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction concerning the journal, its policies, procedures, editorial conduct, staff conduct, editorial-board conduct, publication services, or handling of a publication-ethics matter.

Complaints may concern, but are not limited to:

  • unreasonable or unexplained delays in manuscript handling;

  • communication problems with the editorial office;

  • concerns about the conduct of editors or editorial staff;

  • concerns about the conduct of reviewers;

  • failure to follow the journal's published policies or procedures;

  • concerns regarding the implementation of the peer-review process;

  • concerns about the handling of publication-ethics cases;

  • concerns regarding editorial conflicts of interest;

  • concerns about inappropriate editorial conduct;

  • concerns regarding published content or publication practices;

  • concerns regarding the journal's administrative or technical systems; and

  • concerns regarding the application of journal policies.

A complaint is not normally an appeal merely because the complainant disagrees with the scholarly judgment expressed in an editorial decision.

2.2 Appeals

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

An appeal may relate to decisions such as:

  • rejection after editorial assessment;

  • rejection after peer review;

  • a decision that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication;

  • other substantive editorial decisions where the journal's decision materially affects the manuscript's publication status.

An appeal should identify a specific and substantive basis for reconsideration.

An appeal is not intended to provide authors with an unlimited opportunity to challenge editorial judgment or obtain repeated reviews merely because they disagree with reviewers or editors.

2.3 Relationship Between Complaints, Appeals, and Publication Ethics

Complaints and appeals may overlap with other publication-ethics policies.

For example:

  • allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or other misconduct are handled under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy;

  • authorship disputes are handled under the Authorship and Contributorship Policy;

  • conflicts of interest are handled under the Conflicts of Interest Policy;

  • concerns about published articles may be handled under the Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections Policy and, where necessary, the Retraction and Expression of Concern Policy.

However, a complaint concerning how such a matter was handled may itself be considered under this Complaints and Appeals Policy.

2.4 Who May Submit a Complaint?

Complaints may be submitted by:

  • authors;

  • reviewers;

  • readers;

  • editorial-board members;

  • researchers;

  • institutions;

  • research participants, where relevant;

  • members of the public; or

  • other individuals or organisations with a legitimate concern.

The complainant does not necessarily need to be the person directly affected by the matter.

2.5 Who May Submit an Appeal?

Appeals concerning manuscript decisions should normally be submitted by the corresponding author on behalf of the author group.

The corresponding author should ensure that the other authors are aware of and agree with the appeal.

Where appropriate, MAJIS may request confirmation from the other authors.

3. Policy

3.1 Commitment to Fair Process

MAJIS will handle complaints and appeals fairly, consistently, and impartially.

The journal will consider relevant evidence and will seek to ensure that the individual responsible for reviewing a complaint or appeal is appropriately independent from the matter being challenged.

The existence of a complaint or appeal does not itself establish that the journal, an editor, reviewer, author, or other party has acted improperly.

3.2 Independence and Impartiality

Individuals involved in a complaint or appeal must disclose any relevant conflict of interest.

An editor should not make a final decision on a complaint or appeal where the editor:

  • is personally involved in the matter;

  • made the decision being challenged and should not independently review their own conduct;

  • has a personal or professional relationship with the complainant or appellant that could affect impartiality;

  • has a financial or institutional interest in the outcome; or

  • has another relevant conflict of interest.

Where necessary, the matter will be reassigned to another qualified editor or senior member of the editorial structure.

3.3 Confidentiality

Complaints and appeals will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

Information will be shared only with individuals who have a legitimate need to participate in the assessment or resolution of the matter.

Confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is:

  • required by law;

  • necessary for a fair investigation;

  • necessary to consult an institution or relevant expert;

  • necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record; or

  • otherwise justified by legitimate publication-ethics considerations.

The journal will not unnecessarily disclose the identity of a complainant or appellant.

3.4 No Retaliation

MAJIS will not tolerate retaliation against an individual who raises a complaint or submits an appeal in good faith.

A complaint or appeal will not, by itself, adversely affect the future editorial consideration of a person's legitimate submissions.

This protection does not prevent the journal from taking appropriate action where a person knowingly submits false, malicious, threatening, abusive, or deliberately misleading allegations.

3.5 Timeliness

MAJIS seeks to acknowledge and address complaints and appeals promptly.

For complaints, the journal's Stage 1 handling editor should provide a response within 10 business days, where practicable.

For appeals, the journal's Stage 2 review should normally reach a decision within 21 days, where practicable.

Complex cases may require additional time. Where significant delay occurs, the journal should inform the complainant or appellant when appropriate.

The stated timeframes are service targets rather than guarantees that every case will be resolved within the specified period.

3.6 Constructive Resolution

The purpose of the complaints process is to identify and resolve legitimate concerns and, where appropriate, improve the journal's policies, procedures, and editorial practices.

Possible resolutions may include:

  • clarification;

  • explanation;

  • correction of an administrative error;

  • reconsideration of a procedural issue;

  • correction of published information;

  • apology where appropriate;

  • review or modification of a journal procedure;

  • reassignment of an editorial matter;

  • further investigation; or

  • referral to another appropriate policy or institution.

3.7 Complaints About Editorial Decisions

A complaint that merely states disagreement with the scholarly judgment of an editor or reviewer will normally be treated as an appeal rather than a general complaint.

Authors should use the appeal procedure when they believe that:

  • the decision was based on a significant factual misunderstanding;

  • relevant information was overlooked;

  • a material procedural error occurred;

  • there is evidence of inappropriate bias or conflict of interest; or

  • significant new evidence exists that could materially affect the decision.

3.8 Grounds for Appeal

MAJIS will consider an appeal when it identifies a substantive basis for reconsideration, including:

A. Significant Factual or Interpretive Error

The author may demonstrate that the editorial decision was based on a material misunderstanding or factual error concerning the manuscript.

B. Significant Procedural Error

The author may identify a material departure from the journal's stated editorial or peer-review procedure that could reasonably have affected the decision.

C. Evidence of Bias or Conflict of Interest

An appeal may be considered where there is credible evidence of inappropriate bias, undisclosed conflict of interest, or another circumstance that could reasonably have compromised the fairness of the editorial process.

D. Significant New Evidence

An author may provide substantive new evidence that was not reasonably available during the original assessment and that directly addresses a material issue underlying the decision.

The existence of new information does not automatically require the journal to overturn the original decision.

3.9 Grounds That Normally Do Not Justify an Appeal

An appeal will not normally be successful merely because:

  • the author disagrees with the reviewer's academic opinion;

  • the author believes the manuscript is important;

  • another journal or reviewer expressed a different opinion;

  • the authors disagree with the importance assigned to a research question;

  • the author considers the decision unfair without identifying a specific procedural or factual problem;

  • the author submits a substantially revised manuscript as if it were an appeal; or

  • the author repeatedly submits the same arguments without substantive new grounds.

MAJIS respects legitimate differences in scholarly judgment. An appeal process is intended to identify material errors or procedural problems, not to replace every editorial judgment with the author's preferred judgment.

3.10 One Formal Appeal

MAJIS permits one formal appeal per editorial decision.

The journal's current procedure provides for a single appeal to an uninvolved senior editor.

Once the appeal has been reviewed and a final decision issued, the journal will generally not consider further appeals concerning the same decision unless exceptional circumstances or significant new evidence arise.

3.11 Reviewer Confidentiality

Appeals will not normally result in disclosure of confidential reviewer identities.

Where double-anonymous peer review applies, MAJIS will preserve reviewer anonymity unless there is a legitimate publication-ethics reason or legal requirement for disclosure.

An appeal may nevertheless result in review of the original reports and editorial records by another qualified editor or independent expert.

3.12 Complaints About Reviewers

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct may include:

  • inappropriate disclosure of manuscript information;

  • disrespectful or abusive comments;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • inappropriate use of confidential manuscript material;

  • suspected plagiarism by a reviewer;

  • inappropriate citation demands;

  • evidence of bias; or

  • other conduct inconsistent with reviewer responsibilities.

Where a complaint concerns reviewer conduct, the journal may review relevant records and may consult the handling editor or another appropriate editor.

Where the concern raises a possible publication-ethics issue, the matter may be referred to the relevant ethics policy.

3.13 Complaints About Editors or Editorial Staff

Where a complaint concerns an editor or editorial staff member, that person should not be solely responsible for investigating the complaint.

The matter should be referred to an appropriately independent senior editor or other authorised person.

Where the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the matter should be escalated to an appropriate independent authority within the journal's governance structure or publisher.

3.14 Complaints About the Publisher

Where a complaint concerns the publisher rather than editorial decision-making, MAJIS may refer the matter to the appropriate publisher representative.

Editorial independence must be maintained in resolving complaints that could affect editorial decisions.

3.15 Complaints About Published Content

Concerns about the accuracy, integrity, or reliability of published content may require a publication-ethics investigation rather than a conventional complaint.

Depending on the nature of the concern, MAJIS may apply:

  • the Allegations of Misconduct Policy;

  • the Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections Policy;

  • the Retraction and Expression of Concern Policy; or

  • another relevant policy.

The journal will seek to ensure that the published scholarly record is corrected where reliable evidence demonstrates that correction is necessary.

3.16 Complaints Concerning Research Misconduct

Complaints alleging:

  • plagiarism;

  • fabrication;

  • falsification;

  • unethical research;

  • authorship manipulation;

  • peer-review manipulation;

  • duplicate publication; or

  • other research or publication misconduct

will normally be handled according to the Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

A complainant does not need to prove misconduct conclusively. The journal will assess the information provided and determine whether further investigation is warranted.

3.17 Complaints Concerning Authorship

Complaints concerning authorship should be handled according to the Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

Where an authorship dispute cannot be resolved among the authors, MAJIS may refer the matter to the relevant institution.

The journal will generally avoid adjudicating disputed factual claims about the relative contributions of authors.

3.18 Complaints Concerning Conflicts of Interest

Where a complaint identifies a potential conflict of interest involving an author, reviewer, editor, or other participant, MAJIS will assess the matter according to its Conflicts of Interest Policy.

Where necessary, the journal may reassign the manuscript or investigation to an uninvolved editor.

3.19 Complaints Involving the Editor-in-Chief

Where the Editor-in-Chief is the subject of a complaint or appeal, the Editor-in-Chief should not be the sole decision-maker.

The matter should be transferred to an appropriately independent senior editor, editorial-board member, publisher representative, or other authorised person.

This procedure is intended to prevent an individual from adjudicating a complaint about their own conduct.

3.20 Complaints Involving Multiple Parties

Where a complaint involves multiple editors, reviewers, authors, institutions, or journals, MAJIS may coordinate with the relevant parties as necessary.

The journal will disclose only information reasonably necessary for resolving the matter.

Where another institution or journal has primary responsibility for an aspect of the dispute, MAJIS may refer that aspect to the appropriate body while continuing to address matters within its own editorial responsibility.

3.21 Frivolous, Repetitive, or Abusive Complaints

MAJIS may decline to pursue complaints that are:

  • clearly outside the journal's responsibility;

  • unsupported by any specific information;

  • repetitive and already conclusively addressed;

  • submitted solely to disrupt editorial operations;

  • abusive, threatening, or harassing; or

  • demonstrably malicious.

Where a complaint is dismissed for these reasons, the journal may provide a brief explanation.

A complaint should not be dismissed merely because it is critical of the journal or its editors.

3.22 Frivolous or Repetitive Appeals

The journal may decline to consider an appeal where:

  • the author has already used the formal appeal mechanism;

  • the same arguments have already been considered;

  • no new substantive evidence is presented; or

  • the appeal does not identify a valid ground for reconsideration.

3.23 Editorial Independence

The handling of complaints and appeals must not compromise editorial independence.

Financial, commercial, institutional, personal, or other external interests must not determine the outcome of a complaint or appeal.

Editorial decisions should remain based on the journal's stated policies, scholarly considerations, publication ethics, and applicable evidence.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

A. Procedure for Handling Complaints

1. Submission of a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the MAJIS editorial office or the designated handling editor using the official contact information published by the journal.

Complaint contact:
[INSERT VERIFIED MAJIS COMPLAINT/EDITORIAL CONTACT]

A complaint should include, where applicable:

  • complainant's name and contact information;

  • manuscript or article title;

  • manuscript ID or DOI, if available;

  • date(s) relevant to the complaint;

  • names of relevant individuals;

  • a clear description of the concern;

  • the policy or procedure believed to be relevant;

  • supporting documentation or evidence; and

  • the outcome or remedy being requested, where appropriate.

A complaint should be sufficiently specific to allow the journal to understand and assess the concern.

2. Acknowledgement

The handling editor or editorial office will acknowledge receipt of the complaint.

MAJIS aims to provide an initial response within 10 business days.

The acknowledgement may:

  • confirm that the matter has been received;

  • explain whether additional information is required;

  • identify the person responsible for handling the matter; or

  • indicate that the complaint has been referred to another policy or responsible body.

3. Initial Assessment

The handling editor will determine:

  • whether the matter constitutes a complaint;

  • whether it should instead be handled as an appeal;

  • whether it falls within another publication-ethics policy;

  • whether the complaint is sufficiently specific;

  • whether a conflict of interest exists;

  • whether another person should handle the matter; and

  • whether external or institutional advice is necessary.

4. Investigation

Where investigation is necessary, the journal may review:

  • manuscript records;

  • submission-system records;

  • editorial correspondence;

  • peer-review reports;

  • reviewer communications;

  • publication records;

  • relevant journal policies;

  • editorial decisions;

  • staff communications; and

  • other appropriate documentation.

The journal may contact the complainant for clarification.

The journal may also seek information from relevant editors, reviewers, authors, institutions, or other parties.

5. Resolution

After assessing the available information, the journal may:

  • uphold the complaint;

  • partially uphold the complaint;

  • reject the complaint;

  • provide clarification;

  • correct an administrative or procedural error;

  • revise an applicable procedure;

  • reassign a manuscript;

  • conduct an additional review;

  • refer the matter to another policy;

  • refer the matter to an institution or publisher; or

  • take another appropriate action.

6. Written Response

The journal will provide a written response where appropriate.

The response should explain, at an appropriate level of detail:

  • what was investigated;

  • the relevant findings;

  • whether the complaint was upheld;

  • what action has been or will be taken; and

  • whether any further internal review is available.

Confidential information concerning reviewers, other authors, staff, or third parties will not be disclosed unnecessarily.

B. Procedure for Handling Appeals

1. Submission of an Appeal

An appeal should be submitted in writing by the corresponding author.

The appeal should be submitted within 14 days of the editorial decision in accordance with MAJIS's current appeal procedure.

The appeal should identify:

  • manuscript title;

  • manuscript ID;

  • date of the editorial decision;

  • decision being appealed;

  • specific grounds for appeal;

  • relevant reviewer or editor comments;

  • point-by-point explanation of factual or procedural errors, where applicable;

  • significant new evidence, if applicable; and

  • any supporting documentation.

An appeal should not merely state that the authors disagree with the decision.

2. Initial Assessment of the Appeal

The handling editor or Editor-in-Chief will determine whether the appeal identifies a legitimate ground for reconsideration.

The appeal may be dismissed without full reconsideration if it:

  • provides no substantive grounds;

  • merely repeats the original submission;

  • contains no new evidence where new evidence is required;

  • challenges only scholarly opinion without identifying an error or procedural problem; or

  • has already been considered through the journal's formal appeal process.

3. Independent Review of the Appeal

Where the appeal has a legitimate basis, MAJIS will refer it to an uninvolved senior editor.

The senior editor should not have been responsible for the original decision where practical.

The appeal reviewer may examine:

  • the original manuscript;

  • editorial decision letter;

  • reviewer reports;

  • author responses;

  • editorial correspondence;

  • relevant journal policies; and

  • the grounds and evidence submitted in the appeal.

4. Additional Expert Assessment

Where appropriate, the senior editor may:

  • consult the original handling editor;

  • seek clarification from reviewers;

  • obtain advice from another editorial-board member;

  • appoint an independent external expert; or

  • initiate a new peer-review assessment.

Reviewer anonymity should be preserved where applicable.

5. Decision on Appeal

MAJIS aims to issue a decision on an appeal within 21 days after the appeal has been accepted for substantive consideration.

Possible outcomes include:

  • the original decision is upheld;

  • the original decision is upheld with clarification;

  • the manuscript is invited for additional revision;

  • the manuscript is sent for further peer review;

  • the original decision is reconsidered; or

  • the original decision is overturned.

An appeal decision will normally be final within the journal's internal process.

6. Communication of Appeal Decision

The corresponding author will receive the appeal decision in writing.

Where the original decision is upheld, the journal should provide a concise explanation of the grounds for maintaining the decision.

Where the decision is changed, the journal should explain the next stage of the editorial process.

C. Special Procedure for Conflicted Editors

If the handling editor has a conflict of interest:

  1. the matter should be transferred to another qualified editor;

  2. the conflicted editor should not participate in the final decision;

  3. confidential information should be restricted appropriately; and

  4. the reassigned editor should review the matter independently.

If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the matter should be referred to an appropriately independent authority within the journal's governance or publisher structure.

D. Record Keeping

MAJIS will maintain confidential records of complaints and appeals, including:

  • date of submission;

  • identity of the complainant or appellant, where known;

  • manuscript or article information;

  • nature of the concern;

  • supporting evidence;

  • relevant correspondence;

  • investigation records;

  • decision;

  • action taken; and

  • final outcome.

Records should be retained in accordance with the journal's applicable record-management practices.

Record retention period:
[INSERT VERIFIED MAJIS RECORD-RETENTION PERIOD]

Access to complaint and appeal records should be restricted to authorised individuals.

Records may be used in aggregated or anonymised form to identify recurring problems and improve journal policies and editorial procedures.

E. Monitoring and Improvement

MAJIS may periodically review complaints and appeals to identify:

  • recurring procedural problems;

  • unreasonable delays;

  • communication problems;

  • inconsistent application of policies;

  • training needs;

  • potential conflicts of interest;

  • weaknesses in editorial workflows; and

  • opportunities for improving author and reviewer services.

The existence of a complaint does not necessarily indicate that an individual or process was defective. However, repeated complaints concerning the same issue should prompt appropriate review.

5. Responsibilities

5.1 Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring that complaints and appeals are handled in accordance with this policy.

The Editor-in-Chief should:

  • ensure procedural fairness;

  • assign matters to appropriate editors;

  • avoid conflicts of interest;

  • ensure confidentiality;

  • monitor response times;

  • ensure appropriate escalation; and

  • maintain the integrity of the editorial process.

The Editor-in-Chief should not adjudicate a matter in which they have a direct conflict of interest.

5.2 Handling Editors

Handling editors are responsible for:

  • conducting an impartial initial assessment;

  • reviewing relevant editorial records;

  • communicating appropriately with complainants or appellants;

  • identifying conflicts of interest;

  • maintaining confidentiality; and

  • escalating matters requiring independent review.

5.3 Senior Editor Handling Appeals

The senior editor assigned to a formal appeal should:

  • be sufficiently independent from the original decision;

  • review the grounds of appeal objectively;

  • consider relevant evidence;

  • preserve reviewer confidentiality;

  • seek additional advice where necessary; and

  • issue a reasoned final internal decision.

5.4 Editorial Office

The editorial office is responsible for:

  • receiving complaints and appeals;

  • recording them appropriately;

  • acknowledging receipt;

  • maintaining relevant records;

  • forwarding matters to the appropriate editor; and

  • monitoring administrative deadlines.

5.5 Authors

Authors are expected to:

  • raise complaints and appeals in good faith;

  • provide accurate information;

  • identify specific grounds;

  • provide supporting evidence where available;

  • respect reviewer and editorial confidentiality; and

  • avoid submitting repetitive or abusive correspondence.

5.6 Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to cooperate appropriately with legitimate editorial enquiries concerning their reviews.

Reviewers should maintain confidentiality and should not retaliate against authors who appeal an editorial decision.

6. Relationship with Other MAJIS Policies

This policy should be read together with the journal's other publication-ethics policies.

Where appropriate:

  • Allegations of Misconduct governs suspected research and publication misconduct;

  • Authorship and Contributorship governs authorship disputes and contribution concerns;

  • Conflicts of Interest governs competing-interest concerns;

  • Peer Review Process governs reviewer and editorial-review procedures;

  • Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections governs concerns about published articles;

  • Retraction and Expression of Concern governs serious post-publication integrity concerns;

  • Generative AI governs concerns involving AI-assisted scholarly work.

Where a complaint overlaps with another policy, MAJIS may apply both policies or transfer the matter to the policy most directly applicable to the substantive concern.

7. COPE Resources

This policy has been developed with reference to the COPE Core Practice on Complaints and Appeals.

COPE identifies complaints and appeals as a core area of publication ethics and states that journals should have a clearly described process for handling complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board, or publisher.

Relevant COPE resources include:

  • COPE Core Practice: Complaints and Appeals

  • Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office

  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

  • relevant COPE guidance and case discussions concerning appeals, complaints, editorial independence, and unresolved publication-ethics concerns.

The COPE Core Practice should be distinguished from individual COPE discussion documents and case discussions. Discussion documents and cases can provide useful context and practical considerations but should not automatically be presented as mandatory COPE requirements.

Official COPE resources are available through:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

8. Final Statement

MAJIS is committed to providing an accessible, fair, transparent, and accountable mechanism for complaints and appeals.

The journal recognises that legitimate scholarly disagreement is part of academic publishing. The complaints and appeals process therefore seeks to distinguish between legitimate concerns about procedure, conduct, policy implementation, and editorial fairness on the one hand, and ordinary differences in scholarly judgment on the other.

Complaints will be assessed fairly and confidentially, while appeals will be considered where authors identify substantive factual, procedural, conflict-of-interest, bias, or new-evidence grounds for reconsideration.

MAJIS will seek to resolve complaints and appeals within reasonable timeframes and will use the information obtained through these processes, where appropriate, to improve its editorial policies and procedures.

This policy has been developed with reference to relevant COPE Core Practices and guidance. It does not constitute or imply COPE approval, certification, or endorsement.