JPPMI | EDITORIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Fair, independent, confidential, and transparent procedures for addressing editorial complaints and appeals.
Jurnal Pengabdian dan Pengembangan Masyarakat Indonesia (JPPMI) is committed to fair, transparent, respectful, and accountable editorial practices. Authors, reviewers, readers, community participants, and other stakeholders may submit complaints or appeals when they believe journal policies, procedures, or ethical standards have not been appropriately applied.
Complaints and appeals are assessed objectively and, whenever practicable, by an editor or responsible individual who was not directly involved in the matter.
Persons raising concerns in good faith must not experience retaliation or unfair disadvantage in future editorial consideration.
| Type | Purpose | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint | Raises a concern about journal procedures, professional conduct, services, ethics, or published material. | Unreasonable processing delay, inappropriate communication, unmanaged conflicts of interest, privacy concerns, or publication errors. |
| Editorial Appeal | Requests reconsideration of a specific editorial decision based on a material concern. | Significant factual error, procedural irregularity, incorrect application of policy, or a relevant unmanaged conflict of interest. |
JPPMI accepts relevant complaints concerning:
Editorial appeals should identify a significant concern that may reasonably have affected the original decision.
Appropriate grounds include:
Important: Disagreement with a reviewer recommendation or editorial decision alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal. Comments that can be addressed through the normal revision process should be handled through manuscript revision.
Complaints and appeals must be submitted in writing through the journal's official contact channel.
Editorial appeals should normally be submitted within 30 calendar days of the decision being challenged.
The submission should contain:
The journal may request additional information when the submission is incomplete or the concern requires clarification. Sensitive information should be supplied only through an appropriate and authorized communication channel.
JPPMI applies a documented assessment process that considers the nature, seriousness, and available evidence of each concern.
STEP 01
The journal records the submission and normally acknowledges receipt within seven working days.
STEP 02
The editorial office determines whether the issue falls within the journal's responsibility, whether adequate information is available, and whether immediate action is necessary to protect individuals, confidentiality, or the scholarly record.
STEP 03
The matter is assigned to an editor or responsible person without a relevant conflict of interest. Appropriate editorial records, correspondence, decisions, policies, and supporting evidence may be examined.
STEP 04
Relevant individuals or organizations may be asked to provide clarification or supporting information. Affected parties should receive a reasonable opportunity to respond to material concerns.
STEP 05
The journal determines an appropriate response based on the available evidence, records the result, and communicates the outcome and reasons as far as confidentiality and applicable law permit.
JPPMI seeks to handle complaints and appeals within reasonable periods, taking into account their complexity and the availability of necessary information.
| Stage | Indicative Target |
|---|---|
| Acknowledgment of receipt | Normally within 7 working days |
| Initial assessment or progress update | Normally within 20 working days |
| Complex ethical or institutional investigation | Additional time may be required, with periodic updates |
These periods are service targets rather than guaranteed deadlines for final resolution. Investigations involving external institutions, sensitive evidence, or multiple parties may require additional time.
Depending on the nature of the concern and the evidence available, the journal may:
An appeal does not automatically suspend, reverse, or invalidate an editorial decision.
A manuscript may be assigned for additional independent evaluation when an appeal identifies a material issue that could reasonably have affected the original assessment.
Normally, only one substantive appeal is considered for each editorial decision. A repeated appeal may be considered if significant new evidence becomes available.
Reconsideration does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or publication.
A complaint or appeal must not be decided solely by the person whose actions, conduct, or decision are being challenged.
Complaints involving a handling editor should be referred to the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately qualified independent editor.
Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief should be assigned to an independent editorial board member or an appropriately authorized publisher representative who has no relevant conflict of interest.
Any individual with a significant conflict of interest must withdraw from evaluating the relevant complaint or appeal. The reassignment and resulting decision should be appropriately documented.
Allegations involving plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, misleading community engagement documentation, inappropriate authorship, violations of participant rights, missing consent, or other serious publication integrity concerns may require further investigation.
The journal may seek relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and consult an authorized institution, ethics committee, funder, or other responsible organization when necessary.
JPPMI distinguishes preliminary allegations from substantiated findings and provides affected persons with a reasonable opportunity to respond. Final action is based on the available evidence and applicable editorial procedures.
Information concerning complaints and appeals is handled as confidentially as reasonably possible. Access is limited to persons who require the information to evaluate, investigate, or resolve the matter.
Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed when disclosure is necessary for procedural fairness, institutional investigation, legal compliance, or the protection of affected persons.
Anonymous complaints may be considered when sufficiently specific and credible evidence is provided. The absence of contact information may limit opportunities for verification, clarification, and communication of an outcome.
Individuals raising concerns in good faith must not be subjected to retaliation, discrimination, or adverse editorial treatment solely because they submitted a complaint.
Authors, reviewers, editors, complainants, and other stakeholders are expected to communicate respectfully and provide truthful, relevant information.
Reasoned criticism of editorial decisions, journal services, or published work is permitted and should be considered fairly.
Threats, harassment, discriminatory language, deliberate misinformation, repeated abusive communication, and improper attempts to influence editorial decisions are not acceptable.
JPPMI has authority to evaluate its editorial procedures, manuscript decisions, and published content. However, the journal does not replace an institutional, professional, regulatory, or legal investigative body.
Matters beyond the journal's investigative authority may be referred to an appropriate institution, research ethics committee, professional organization, funder, regulatory authority, or other responsible body.
JPPMI remains responsible for determining appropriate editorial action concerning its own publications, taking into account available evidence, external findings when relevant, and the need to maintain an accurate and reliable scholarly record.
