Procedures for submitting and resolving complaints and editorial 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 parties may submit a complaint or appeal when they believe that the journal's policies, procedures, or ethical standards have not been appropriately applied.
Complaints and appeals are evaluated objectively and, whenever practicable, by an editor or responsible person who was not directly involved in the matter. Raising a concern in good faith will not result in retaliation or disadvantage in future editorial consideration.
| Type | Purpose | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint | Reports a concern about journal services, procedures, conduct, ethics, or published content | Unreasonable delay, inappropriate communication, unmanaged conflict of interest, ethical concern, or metadata error |
| Appeal | Requests reconsideration of a specific editorial decision | Significant factual error, procedural irregularity, misapplication of policy, or unmanaged conflict affecting the decision |
Complaints may relate to:
An appeal should identify a substantial problem that may have affected the editorial decision. Appropriate grounds may include:
Disagreement with an editorial decision or reviewer recommendation, without evidence of a factual error, procedural problem, or relevant conflict of interest, is not sufficient grounds for an appeal. Reviewer comments that can be addressed through ordinary manuscript revision should be answered through the revision process.
Complaints and appeals should 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 appealed.
The submission should include:
Receipt → Initial Assessment → Independent Review → Outcome → Corrective Action, When Required
The journal records the submission and normally acknowledges receipt within seven working days.
The journal determines whether the matter falls within this policy, whether sufficient information has been provided, and whether an immediate action is needed to protect participants, confidentiality, or the scholarly record.
The matter is assigned to an appropriate editor or responsible person without a relevant conflict of interest. The reviewer may examine manuscript records, editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, policies, published content, and supporting evidence.
The journal may request clarification or documentation from the complainant, authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, ethics committees, or other relevant parties. All parties should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
After evaluating the available information, the journal communicates the outcome and reasons to the submitting person, subject to legal, privacy, and confidentiality limitations. When corrective action is required, the journal records and implements the action.
| Stage | Editorial Target |
|---|---|
| Acknowledgment of receipt | Normally within 7 working days |
| Initial assessment or status update | Normally within 20 working days |
| Complex ethical or institutional investigation | May require additional time, with periodic status updates |
Depending on the findings, the journal may:
An appeal does not automatically suspend or reverse an editorial decision. Acceptance following an appeal is not guaranteed. A manuscript may be sent for additional review when the appeal identifies a material issue that could reasonably have affected the decision.
Normally, only one appeal is considered for each editorial decision. Repeated appeals will be considered only when substantial new evidence becomes available.
A complaint or appeal must not be decided solely by the person whose conduct or decision is being challenged. Complaints involving an editor are referred to the Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor. Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief are referred to an independent editorial board member or the publisher. Any person with a relevant conflict of interest must withdraw from the evaluation.
Allegations involving plagiarism, fabricated data, falsification, inappropriate authorship, unethical participant treatment, absence of required consent, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other serious misconduct may require a formal investigation. JPPMI may follow relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics and may contact the responsible institution, ethics committee, funder, or other authorized body.
Information is handled as confidentially as reasonably possible. Access is limited to persons who need the information to assess or resolve the matter. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed when disclosure is necessary for procedural fairness, institutional investigation, legal compliance, or protection of affected persons.
Anonymous complaints may be considered when they provide sufficiently specific and credible evidence. Lack of contact information may limit the journal's ability to verify information, request clarification, or communicate an outcome.
All parties are expected to communicate respectfully and provide truthful information. Criticism of editorial decisions is permitted, but threats, harassment, discriminatory statements, deliberate misinformation, repeated abusive communication, or attempts to improperly influence editorial decisions are not acceptable.
JPPMI can assess its editorial processes and take action regarding its publications but does not replace institutional, professional, or legal investigations. Matters beyond the journal's authority may be referred to the relevant institution, ethics committee, professional body, funder, regulatory authority, or other appropriate organization.
