Complaints and Appeals Policy

Journal of Responsible AI & Ethics (JRAIE)

The Journal of Responsible AI & Ethics (JRAIE) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, accountable, and professionally managed editorial and publishing process. The journal recognizes the right of authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other stakeholders to raise legitimate concerns regarding editorial procedures, publication decisions, ethical matters, published content, or the conduct of individuals involved in scholarly communication.

This policy establishes the procedures through which complaints and appeals may be submitted, assessed, and resolved. Complaints and appeals are considered impartially and, where practicable, by an individual who was not solely responsible for the original decision or action under review.

The journal distinguishes between a complaint, which concerns the conduct, administration, policy implementation, or integrity of the publication process, and an appeal, which seeks reconsideration of a specific editorial decision.

JRAIE manages complaints and appeals in accordance with recognized publication-ethics principles, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), while maintaining editorial independence and fairness in decision-making.

1. Purpose of the Policy

The purpose of this policy is to provide an accessible and consistent mechanism for addressing concerns that may arise during manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, publication, or post-publication evaluation.

JRAIE seeks to ensure that:

Legitimate concerns can be raised without unreasonable barriers.
Complaints are treated seriously, respectfully, and confidentially.
Appeals are evaluated on scholarly and procedural grounds.
Conflicts of interest are appropriately managed.
Decisions are supported by relevant evidence.
Appropriate corrective action is taken when an error or procedural failure is established.
The integrity of the scholarly record is protected.

The existence of a complaint or appeal does not automatically imply that misconduct, procedural failure, or editorial error has occurred.

2. Scope of Complaints

Complaints may relate to:

Editorial procedures.
Peer-review processes.
Editorial delays.
Failure to follow published journal policies.
Reviewer conduct.
Editor conduct.
Conflicts of interest.
Authorship or contributorship concerns.
Plagiarism or publication misconduct.
Research-integrity concerns.
Data-related concerns.
Copyright and licensing issues.
Privacy and confidentiality concerns.
Publication corrections or retractions.
Metadata errors.
Ethical concerns involving research.

Complaints outside the journal’s authority may be referred to appropriate institutions, publishers, ethics committees, research organizations, or other responsible bodies where necessary.

3. Scope of Appeals

An appeal is a formal request for reconsideration of an editorial decision.

Authors may appeal decisions involving:

Rejection after editorial assessment.
Rejection after peer review.
Alleged factual misunderstanding.
Significant procedural irregularity.
Overlooked relevant evidence.
Potential conflict of interest affecting evaluation.

An appeal should not be submitted solely because an author disagrees with reviewer comments or prefers a different editorial judgment.

4. Grounds for Appeal

An appeal should demonstrate a substantive reason, such as:

A factual error affecting the decision.
A significant misunderstanding of the manuscript.
Failure to consider important evidence.
Failure to follow established editorial procedures.
An identifiable conflict of interest.
A serious inconsistency between reviewer feedback and editorial reasoning.

Authors should clearly explain why reconsideration is justified.

5. Matters Not Normally Considered Valid Appeals

The following are generally insufficient grounds:

Disagreement with reviewer opinions without evidence of error.
Desire for a different reviewer.
Dissatisfaction with rejection alone.
Arguments based on author reputation or institutional affiliation.
Publication urgency.
Claims that the manuscript is important without supporting evidence.

6. Submission of Complaints

Complaints should be submitted through the official editorial contact information provided on the journal website.

The complainant should provide:

Name and contact information.
Manuscript title or article details.
Manuscript identification number where available.
Description of the concern.
Relevant dates and correspondence.
Supporting evidence.
Requested outcome where applicable.

Complaints should be factual, specific, and professionally written.

Anonymous complaints may be considered when sufficient credible evidence is provided.

The journal encourages complainants to use the designated editorial communication channel to ensure appropriate tracking, confidentiality, and systematic handling.

7. Submission of Appeals

Appeals should normally be submitted by the corresponding author.

An appeal should include:

Manuscript title.
Manuscript identification number.
Date and nature of editorial decision.
Specific grounds for appeal.
Point-by-point explanation.
Supporting evidence.

Appeals should focus on the submitted manuscript and original decision rather than introducing a substantially different study.

8. Initial Assessment

Upon receipt of a complaint or appeal, the journal evaluates:

Whether the matter falls within this policy.
Whether sufficient information is available.
Whether additional documentation is required.
Whether a conflict of interest exists.
Whether referral to another authority is necessary.

Where information is incomplete, clarification may be requested.

The journal will acknowledge receipt of complaints and appeals within a reasonable timeframe.

The duration of assessment may vary depending on:

Complexity of the matter.
Availability of evidence.
Number of parties involved.
Need for expert consultation.
Requirement for institutional involvement.

9. Review of Appeals

Where an appeal is considered appropriate, the journal may examine:

Original manuscript.
Reviewer reports.
Editorial correspondence.
Decision rationale.
Author responses.
Relevant journal policies.

Where practicable, appeals should be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision.

10. Independent Review of Complaints

The journal seeks to maintain independence during complaint handling.

Where a complaint concerns:

An editor, another qualified editor should review it.
A reviewer, the reviewer should not determine the outcome.
The Editor-in-Chief, an appropriate independent authority should assess the matter where possible.

11. Possible Outcomes of Appeals

An appeal may result in:

Confirmation of the original decision.
Additional editorial review.
Assignment to another editor.
Additional peer review.
Correction of procedural errors.
Request for further information.
Reopening of evaluation.

Acceptance of an appeal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance.

12. Complaints Concerning Reviewers

Reviewer-related complaints may involve:

Unprofessional comments.
Confidentiality breaches.
Bias or discrimination.
Citation coercion.
Conflicts of interest.
Misuse of unpublished information.
Peer-review manipulation.

The journal may disregard affected reviews, appoint alternative reviewers, or take other appropriate action.

13. Complaints Concerning Editors

Concerns regarding editors may involve:

Lack of confidentiality.
Conflicts of interest.
Improper influence.
Failure to follow policy.
Discriminatory treatment.
Misuse of unpublished information.

Such complaints will be reviewed independently where possible.

14. Published Article Concerns

Readers may raise concerns regarding:

Data reliability.
Plagiarism.
Authorship.
Image manipulation.
Research ethics.
Undisclosed conflicts.
Incorrect conclusions.

The journal may investigate and take appropriate action through correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other editorial measures.

15. Research Misconduct Complaints

Concerns involving:

Fabrication.
Falsification.
Plagiarism.
Data manipulation.
Peer-review manipulation.
Unethical research practices.

will be assessed carefully.

Where necessary, the journal may consult institutions, ethics committees, or research-integrity bodies.

16. Authorship Complaints

Authorship concerns may include:

Ghost authorship.
Guest authorship.
Missing contributors.
Unauthorized authorship changes.
Disputes regarding contributions.

The journal may request statements from involved parties and may refer unresolved disputes to appropriate institutions.

17. Confidentiality

Complaints and appeals are handled confidentially.

Information may be shared only with individuals directly involved in assessment or resolution.

The journal avoids unnecessary disclosure of personal information while ensuring appropriate investigation.

18. Protection Against Retaliation

Individuals who raise concerns in good faith regarding manuscripts, publications, or journal processes will not face retaliation or disadvantage.

Submitting a legitimate complaint or appeal will not negatively influence current or future submissions.

19. Professional Conduct

All parties are expected to communicate professionally.

The journal may restrict communications containing:

Threats.
Harassment.
Personal attacks.
Discriminatory language.
Repeated abusive correspondence.

Legitimate concerns contained within such communications will still be assessed appropriately.

20. Conflicts of Interest During Complaint Handling

Individuals handling complaints or appeals must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where a conflict exists, another qualified person will manage the matter.

21. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Where concerns affect the reliability of published work, the journal may issue:

Corrections.
Expressions of Concern.
Retractions.

Actions are taken according to the seriousness of the issue and applicable publication-ethics procedures.

22. Institutional Referral

The journal may refer matters to institutions or relevant authorities involving:

Research misconduct.
Complex authorship disputes.
Ethical approval concerns.
Legal issues.
Data ownership disputes.

23. Record Keeping

The journal may maintain records of complaints, appeals, evidence, correspondence, and decisions for accountability and research-integrity purposes.

Records are managed according to confidentiality and privacy requirements.

24. Editorial Independence

Complaints and appeals are assessed independently of commercial, financial, institutional, or personal influence.

Editorial decisions are based on:

Scholarly quality.
Ethical standards.
Published policies.
Integrity of the scholarly record.

25. Relationship With Other Policies

This policy should be read together with:

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Peer Review Policy.
Authorship Policy.
Conflict of Interest Policy.
Research Misconduct Policy.
Data Availability Policy.
Research Data Sharing Policy.
Retraction Policy.
Copyright and Licensing Policy.
Privacy Policy.

26. Continuous Policy Review

JRAIE may update this policy to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, research ethics, artificial intelligence, and editorial best practices.

Material changes will be communicated transparently through the journal website.

Commitment to Fair Resolution

The Journal of Responsible AI & Ethics (JRAIE) is committed to resolving complaints and appeals fairly, transparently, confidentially, and consistently.

The purpose of this process is not only to address individual concerns but also to protect the accuracy, independence, and reliability of the scholarly record.