Complaints and appeals

NERS Jurnal Keperawatan (NJK)
Faculty of Nursing, Universitas Andalas, Indonesia

1. Introduction

NERS Jurnal Keperawatan (NJK) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and accountable scholarly publishing process for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and other members of the academic community.

NJK recognizes that concerns or disagreements may arise regarding editorial decisions, peer review, journal procedures, publication ethics, or the conduct of individuals involved in the publication process. This policy establishes procedures for submitting, assessing, and resolving complaints and appeals in a fair, impartial, confidential, and timely manner.

NJK follows relevant publication ethics principles and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when handling complaints and appeals.

2. Definitions and Scope

This policy distinguishes between complaints and appeals.

2.1 Complaints

A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction concerning the journal's policies, procedures, editorial conduct, publication processes, or other aspects of its operations.

Complaints may include, but are not limited to:

Unreasonable delays in manuscript processing, peer review, or publication.
Concerns about the professional conduct of editors, reviewers, or journal staff.
Problems with the journal website, submission system, or editorial communication.
Concerns about the consistent application of published journal policies.
Concerns about confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or the handling of publication ethics issues.
Concerns regarding the accuracy or transparency of the journal's published procedures.

2.2 Appeals

An appeal is a formal request by an author or authors to reconsider an editorial decision concerning a submitted manuscript.

Appeals may be considered when the author identifies a significant factual error, a material misunderstanding, relevant new evidence, or a substantial concern about the fairness or integrity of the editorial or peer review process.

Disagreement with an editor's or reviewer's scientific judgment alone does not necessarily constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

2.3 Matters Covered by Other Policies

Allegations of research or publication misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, authorship disputes, and breaches of research ethics, will be handled under NJK's Allegations of Misconduct policy.

Complaints about the handling of such allegations may also be submitted under this policy.

3. General Principles

NJK applies the following principles when handling complaints and appeals:

a. Fairness and Impartiality

Every complaint and appeal will be assessed objectively, without discrimination or inappropriate influence. Individuals involved in the matter must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

b. Confidentiality

Information will be shared only with individuals who need it to assess or resolve the matter, subject to applicable legal, institutional, and publication ethics requirements.

c. Timely Handling

NJK will seek to acknowledge complaints and appeals promptly and handle them within a reasonable timeframe. If additional investigation is required, the relevant parties will be informed of significant delays where appropriate.

d. Transparency

The journal will explain the outcome of a complaint or appeal to the relevant parties, subject to confidentiality obligations.

e. Protection Against Retaliation

NJK does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise concerns or submit complaints in good faith.

f. Constructive Resolution

Complaints and appeals will be treated as opportunities to address legitimate concerns and improve the journal's editorial procedures and publishing practices.

g. Appropriate Scope

The journal may decline to consider submissions that are abusive, repetitive without new information, unsupported by relevant evidence, or outside the scope of this policy. Such decisions will be made appropriately and will not be used to dismiss legitimate concerns merely because they are critical of the journal.

4. Procedure for Handling Complaints

4.1 Submission of a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief of NJK through the journal's official contact channels.

A complaint should include, where applicable:

A clear description of the concern.
The relevant dates and events.
The manuscript identification number or article DOI, if applicable.
The names or roles of individuals involved, where relevant.
Supporting documents, correspondence, or other available evidence.
The action or resolution being requested.

Complaints may be submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, or other individuals with a legitimate concern about the journal's activities.

4.2 Acknowledgment and Initial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editorial representative will acknowledge receipt of the complaint and assess whether it falls within the scope of this policy.

NJK may request further information or clarification if necessary to understand the concern.

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief or involves a potential conflict of interest, it should be referred to an appropriate independent editorial representative or the journal's publisher for review.

4.3 Investigation

Depending on the nature of the complaint, NJK may:

Review relevant editorial correspondence and journal records.
Consult the editors, reviewers, or staff involved.
Request additional information from the complainant or other relevant parties.
Seek independent advice when the complaint involves complex editorial, ethical, or technical issues.

The investigation will be conducted impartially, and relevant individuals will be given a reasonable opportunity to provide explanations where appropriate.

4.4 Resolution and Response

After reviewing the available information, NJK will determine an appropriate response.

Possible outcomes include:

Providing an explanation or clarification.
Correcting an administrative or procedural error.
Apologizing where appropriate.
Reviewing or improving a journal procedure.
Referring the matter to an appropriate institutional or independent body.
Concluding that the complaint is not substantiated.

The outcome will be communicated to the complainant where appropriate, subject to confidentiality and other applicable requirements.

4.5 Escalation of Complaints

If a complainant is dissatisfied with the handling or outcome of a complaint by the Editor-in-Chief, they may request further review by the appropriate representative of the journal's publisher, the Faculty of Nursing, Universitas Andalas, through the official contact channels.

Where a complaint concerns publication ethics, NJK may consult relevant COPE guidance. COPE guidance can inform the journal's handling of a concern, although COPE does not ordinarily act as an arbitrator of individual editorial disputes.

5. Procedure for Handling Appeals

5.1 Grounds for Appeal

NJK will consider an appeal when the author provides specific reasons supporting reconsideration of an editorial decision, such as:

A significant factual error or misunderstanding that materially affected the decision.
Relevant new evidence that could reasonably affect the assessment of the manuscript.
A substantial procedural irregularity or demonstrable concern about bias in the peer review or editorial process.
Evidence that the decision may have been inconsistent with the journal's published editorial policies.

Appeals based solely on disagreement with the scientific interpretation or editorial judgment of the reviewers or editors will generally not be sufficient.

5.2 Submission of an Appeal

Appeals should be submitted in writing by the corresponding author to the Editor-in-Chief.

The appeal should include:

The manuscript title and identification number.
The editorial decision being appealed and its date.
Clear grounds for requesting reconsideration.
A point-by-point explanation addressing the relevant concerns in the decision letter or review reports.
Supporting evidence or references, where applicable.

Proposed submission deadline: NJK may establish a deadline of 30 calendar days from the date of the editorial decision for submitting an appeal. This deadline should be confirmed by the editorial management team before it is adopted as an official requirement.

Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed. Authors should not submit a new manuscript as a substitute for an appeal concerning the same work.

5.3 Initial Assessment of an Appeal

The Editor-in-Chief will assess whether the appeal presents valid grounds for reconsideration.

An appeal may be declined if it does not identify a substantive error, relevant new evidence, or a credible concern about the editorial process.

If the appeal meets the relevant criteria, NJK may proceed to a further review of the decision.

5.4 Review of an Appeal

The review may involve:

Re-examining the original manuscript and editorial decision.
Reviewing the relevant peer review reports and correspondence.
Requesting clarification from the handling editor or reviewers, where appropriate.
Seeking an independent assessment from an editor or external expert who was not involved in the original decision.

Any person involved in reviewing the appeal must disclose relevant conflicts of interest. Where the appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief, an appropriate independent representative should oversee the review.

5.5 Decision on an Appeal

Following the review, NJK will communicate the outcome to the corresponding author in writing, with an explanation appropriate to the circumstances.

Possible outcomes include:

Original decision upheld: The initial editorial decision remains unchanged.
Further peer review: The manuscript is referred for additional assessment, potentially involving new reviewers.
Decision reconsidered: The original decision is revised, and the manuscript proceeds to the appropriate next stage of editorial assessment.
Further clarification required: Additional information is requested before a decision can be reached.

A successful appeal does not automatically mean that a manuscript will be accepted for publication. The manuscript must still meet NJK's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements.

NJK will generally consider one formal appeal per manuscript unless exceptional circumstances justify further review.

6. Record Keeping

NJK will maintain appropriate records of complaints and appeals, including relevant correspondence, supporting information, review procedures, and outcomes.

These records will be handled confidentially and retained in accordance with the journal's administrative requirements and applicable obligations. They may be used to identify recurring problems and improve editorial quality and transparency.

7. Policy Review

NJK may periodically review and update this policy to reflect changes in editorial procedures, publication ethics guidance, and applicable requirements. The current version will be published on the journal's website.