Complaints and Appeals

The Jurnal Ilmu Peternakan dan Veteriner Tropis (JIPVET) provides a procedure for submitting and addressing complaints concerning its editorial and publishing activities, as well as appeals against editorial decisions.

Complaints and appeals are considered fairly, impartially, and with due regard for confidentiality. The journal distinguishes concerns about editorial procedures or professional conduct from requests to reconsider the scientific evaluation of a manuscript.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and other individuals who raise legitimate concerns about JIPVET's editorial practices. Relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) may be consulted when appropriate.

1. Scope and General Principles

JIPVET considers complaints and appeals according to the nature of the concern, the available evidence, and the responsibilities of the individuals involved.

The handling of complaints and appeals is guided by the following principles:

• Fairness. Concerns are assessed on their merits, without discrimination or preferential treatment.
• Impartiality. Individuals with a relevant conflict of interest must not determine the outcome of the case.
• Confidentiality. Information is shared only with those who have a legitimate role in examining or resolving the concern.
• Evidence-based assessment. Findings and decisions are supported by the available documentation and relevant editorial records.
• Accountability. The journal maintains appropriate records of the process and communicates outcomes to the parties concerned, subject to confidentiality requirements.

The submission of a complaint or appeal does not automatically suspend an editorial decision or establish that misconduct has occurred.

2. Grounds for Complaints

Complaints may concern the journal, its editorial staff, editorial board, reviewers, publishing procedures, or publisher.

Matters that may be considered include:

• Alleged procedural irregularities in editorial screening, peer review, or manuscript handling.
• Unreasonable editorial delays accompanied by inadequate communication.
• Inappropriate conduct by editors, reviewers, or editorial staff.
• Undisclosed or improperly managed conflicts of interest.
• Breaches of manuscript confidentiality or inappropriate use of unpublished research material.
• Suspected manipulation of peer review, citations, or editorial decisions.
• Concerns about the transparency or application of publication fees.
• Inconsistencies between published editorial policies and the procedures applied to a manuscript.
• Concerns about the handling of potential publication misconduct before or after publication.

Allegations involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or other research misconduct are examined under the journal's publication ethics procedures. Where a concern falls under more than one policy, the editor determines the appropriate procedure and avoids unnecessary duplication of investigations.

3. Grounds for Editorial Appeals

An editorial appeal is a formal request to reconsider a decision concerning a submitted manuscript.

Authors may submit an appeal when they believe that:

1. The decision was materially affected by an identifiable factual or scientific misunderstanding.
2. A relevant methodological explanation, analysis, or item of evidence was overlooked during assessment.
3. The journal's published editorial procedures were not followed.
4. A relevant conflict of interest may have compromised the fairness of the assessment.
5. An editorial decision relied on materially incorrect information concerning the manuscript.

Disagreement with a reviewer's opinion or dissatisfaction with rejection, without supporting evidence of a substantive error or procedural concern, is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.

An appeal is not a mechanism for requesting a new peer-review process solely to obtain a more favorable recommendation.

4. Submission of Complaints and Appeals

Complaints and editorial appeals should be submitted in writing through the journal's official communication channel.

A submission should provide, where applicable, the following information:

1. The name and contact information of the complainant or appellant.
2. The manuscript title and submission identification number, or article DOI and publication details.
3. A clear description of the concern or decision being challenged.
4. Relevant dates and prior editorial correspondence.
5. Supporting documents or evidence.
6. The outcome or corrective action being requested.

Anonymous concerns may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. However, the absence of contact details may limit the journal's ability to investigate and communicate an outcome.

Complainants should avoid distributing confidential manuscript materials beyond the parties authorized to examine the concern.

5. Initial Assessment of Complaints

Upon receipt, the editorial office examines the complaint or appeal to establish its nature, relevance, and the information required for further assessment.

The initial assessment considers whether:

• The matter concerns JIPVET's editorial or publishing responsibilities.
• The concern is supported by sufficient information to permit a meaningful examination.
• The matter has been addressed previously or is currently under examination.
• The individuals responsible for handling the matter have any relevant conflicts of interest.
• The matter should be handled under another journal policy, including research misconduct or post-publication corrections.

Where relevant information is missing, the complainant may be asked to provide clarification or additional documentation.

Concerns that fall outside the journal's responsibilities may be referred to an appropriate institution or authority, where such referral is justified and consistent with confidentiality obligations.

6. Investigation and Independent Handling

Complaints are examined by an appropriately authorized editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

The assessment may involve examination of editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, submission records, applicable journal policies, and other relevant documentation.

Individuals whose conduct or decisions are questioned should be provided an appropriate opportunity to respond before an adverse finding is made, subject to legitimate confidentiality and safeguarding considerations.

Where a complaint concerns the handling editor, responsibility for examining the matter should be transferred to another authorized, unconflicted editor.

Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief should be referred through the official editorial channel for assignment to an unconflicted editorial or publisher representative. The individual concerned must not determine the outcome of a complaint about their own conduct.

If a complaint concerns the publisher or a matter affecting editorial independence, the case should be examined through an appropriate independent institutional arrangement.

Where the available evidence is insufficient to establish an outcome, additional expertise or institutional assistance may be sought. Research institutions may be responsible for investigating misconduct involving their researchers.

7. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Appeals against editorial decisions are assessed with reference to the original decision, relevant reviewer reports, the appellant's explanation, and the available scientific evidence.

Where practicable, reconsideration should involve an authorized editor who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest.

The editor reviewing the appeal may:

• Uphold the original decision when the evidence does not justify reconsideration.
• Request clarification from the original handling editor or other relevant parties.
• Seek additional independent scientific advice when a substantive issue remains unresolved.
• Reopen editorial assessment when a material procedural or scientific error is established.
• Recommend a different editorial outcome when supported by the evidence and journal policies.

Reopening the assessment does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript. Any subsequent review must follow JIPVET's Peer Review Policy.

Appeals are considered independently of an author's financial circumstances, institutional affiliation, or other considerations unrelated to scholarly merit.

8. Outcomes and Corrective Actions

The outcome of a complaint depends on the evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and the journal's responsibilities.

Possible outcomes include:

• A reasoned explanation of the editorial decision or procedure.
• Correction of an administrative or communication error.
• Reassessment of a manuscript by an unconflicted editor.
• Additional independent peer review where scientifically justified.
• Reassignment of editorial responsibilities in cases involving conflicts of interest.
• Revision of an editorial practice or internal procedure.
• Referral of a potential research misconduct matter for appropriate investigation.
• Post-publication action, where warranted, under the journal's corrections and retractions procedures.
• Closure without corrective action when the concern is not supported by the available evidence.

Findings should be communicated to the relevant parties with an explanation appropriate to the nature of the case. Confidential information concerning reviewers, other submissions, or institutional investigations may be withheld where disclosure is not authorized.

9. Confidentiality and Protection of Complainants

JIPVET treats complaints and appeals as confidential editorial matters. Personal information, unpublished manuscripts, reviewer identities, and relevant correspondence are handled with appropriate safeguards.

Information is disclosed only when necessary for legitimate examination, fair response, institutional referral, or compliance with applicable legal and ethical obligations.

Individuals who raise concerns in good faith should not be subjected to retaliatory editorial treatment because they have submitted a complaint or appeal.

Complaints made in good faith are distinguished from deliberately false allegations, harassment, threats, or abusive communication. The journal may take proportionate steps to manage conduct that obstructs a fair investigation.

Requests for anonymity or restricted disclosure will be considered, although complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where an investigation requires disclosure of relevant evidence.

10. Records, Communication, and Closure

The journal should acknowledge complaints and appeals and communicate their status within a reasonable period, taking account of the complexity of the matter.

Some cases may require additional evidence, external scientific advice, or communication with research institutions. Where examination takes longer than anticipated, the complainant should be informed when appropriate.

The editorial office should maintain records of the concern, supporting evidence, relevant correspondence, assessment, outcome, and corrective action, if any.

These records are retained and accessed according to the journal's applicable confidentiality and record-management arrangements.

A case may be closed when the relevant assessment has been completed and the outcome has been communicated as appropriate. Repeated requests concerning the same matter may be reconsidered when material new evidence becomes available.