Complaints and Appeals

1. Introduction

The International Journal of Advanced Science Computing and Engineering (IJASCE) is committed to fair, transparent, accountable, and respectful editorial and publishing processes. Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other stakeholders must have an appropriate mechanism for raising concerns about editorial decisions, journal procedures, conduct, and other matters related to the journal.

This policy distinguishes between appeals, which request reconsideration of a specific editorial decision, and complaints, which concern the conduct, procedures, policies, services, or administration of the journal. Allegations of research or publication misconduct are handled primarily under the IJASCE Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

This policy is informed by the COPE Core Practice on Complaints and Appeals, relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

2. Scope

This policy applies to:

  • authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision;

  • authors, reviewers, readers, or other stakeholders who wish to complain about an editorial or publication process;

  • complaints concerning unreasonable delays, failures in communication, confidentiality, competing interests, reviewer or editor conduct, discrimination, procedural irregularities, or other journal practices;

  • complaints concerning editors, editorial board members, reviewers, journal staff, or the publisher;

  • complaints concerning post-publication editorial actions, including corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions; and

  • other concerns about whether IJASCE has followed its stated policies and procedures fairly and consistently.

Concerns that primarily allege plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, authorship misconduct, peer review manipulation, or other research or publication misconduct will normally be handled under the relevant IJASCE publication ethics policy, although this Complaints and Appeals Policy may also apply to concerns about how the journal handled such a case.

3. General Principles

IJASCE will consider complaints and appeals in good faith and will seek to handle them fairly, impartially, confidentially, and without retaliation against a person solely because they raised a legitimate concern.

The journal will distinguish disagreement with an editorial judgment from evidence that an editorial process was materially flawed. A complaint or appeal will be assessed on the basis of the relevant evidence, journal policy, editorial record, and applicable ethical guidance.

Where the person responsible for assessing a complaint or appeal has a relevant competing interest or was materially involved in the matter being challenged, responsibility should be transferred to an appropriately independent person.

4. Editorial Decision Appeals

4.1 Grounds for Appeal

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a material error occurred in the assessment or decision-making process. Appropriate grounds may include:

  • a material factual or methodological misunderstanding that affected the decision;

  • relevant evidence or information in the manuscript being demonstrably overlooked;

  • a material procedural error in the editorial or peer review process;

  • a significant reviewer or editor competing interest that was not appropriately managed;

  • substantive reviewer comments that can be shown to rely on an important factual error; or

  • another identifiable departure from IJASCE's stated editorial policies that could reasonably have affected the decision.

Simple disagreement with reviewers or editors, preference for a different interpretation of the results, or dissatisfaction with a negative decision is not by itself sufficient grounds for an appeal.

4.2 Submitting an Appeal

An appeal must be submitted in writing through the journal's official contact channel and should identify the manuscript and editorial decision concerned.

The appeal should:

  • state clearly which decision is being appealed;

  • identify the specific alleged error or procedural problem;

  • explain why that issue could have materially affected the editorial decision;

  • respond to the relevant editorial or reviewer reasoning where appropriate; and

  • provide supporting evidence when available.

Appeals should be concise, professional, and focused on the substantive basis for reconsideration.

4.3 Assessment of Appeals

An appeal should, where practicable, be evaluated by an editor, editorial board member, or other qualified person who was not responsible for the original decision and who has no relevant competing interest.

The person assessing the appeal may review the manuscript, editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, author responses, relevant journal policies, and other information necessary to determine whether reconsideration is justified.

An appeal may result in:

  • confirmation of the original decision;

  • reconsideration by another editor;

  • additional or replacement peer review;

  • reopening of editorial consideration; or

  • another appropriate editorial action where a material procedural or evaluative error is established.

An appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed. Where the appeal is rejected, the journal will provide an appropriate explanation of the outcome.

5. Complaints About Journal Processes or Conduct

Complaints may concern journal administration, editorial procedures, peer review, publication practices, staff or editor conduct, communication, confidentiality, competing interests, discrimination, inappropriate behavior, unreasonable delay, or another aspect of the journal's operation.

Examples include:

  • unreasonable or unexplained delays in editorial handling or publication;

  • failure to follow a published journal policy or procedure;

  • inappropriate, abusive, discriminatory, or unprofessional reviewer or editorial communication;

  • breaches of confidentiality;

  • failure to disclose or appropriately manage a competing interest;

  • concerns regarding editorial independence or inappropriate external influence;

  • administrative or communication failures; or

  • concerns regarding the journal's handling of a post-publication matter.

Complaints should identify the matter concerned, explain the problem clearly, and provide relevant supporting information where available.

6. Routing and Independence

6.1 Complaints About Reviewers or Editorial Processes

Complaints concerning reviewers, peer review, or routine editorial processes should normally be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief or another designated editorial contact.

6.2 Complaints About an Editor

A complaint concerning an editor should not be adjudicated solely by the editor whose conduct or decision is the subject of the complaint. Responsibility should be transferred to another appropriately independent editor or designated person.

6.3 Complaints About the Editor-in-Chief

A complaint concerning an Editor-in-Chief should be referred to another Editor-in-Chief who is not implicated in the matter or, where necessary, to an appropriate representative of the publisher or another independent person designated to review the complaint.

The Editor-in-Chief who is the subject of the complaint must not control the assessment or final determination of that complaint.

6.4 Complaints About the Publisher or Journal Governance

Where a complaint concerns the publisher, ownership, governance, or an issue that cannot reasonably be reviewed within the journal's normal editorial structure, IJASCE should arrange review by an appropriately independent person or body with no material involvement in the matter.

7. Complaints Involving Research or Publication Integrity

A complaint may reveal or include an allegation of research or publication misconduct. Examples include plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, peer review manipulation, authorship misconduct, or serious ethical concerns.

In such cases, IJASCE will route the substantive integrity concern through the Allegations of Misconduct Policy and other relevant journal policies while separately considering any complaint about the journal's own process or conduct.

IJASCE distinguishes an editorial assessment conducted by the journal from a formal investigation of researcher misconduct. Where formal investigation is necessary, the relevant institution, employer, funder, or other competent authority may be contacted in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.

8. Anonymous Complaints and Confidentiality

IJASCE will consider anonymous complaints when they contain sufficiently specific, credible, and relevant information to permit meaningful assessment.

The journal will protect the confidentiality of complainants and other individuals involved to the extent reasonably possible. Information may nevertheless need to be shared with individuals or organizations that require it for fair assessment, institutional investigation, legal obligations, or correction of the scholarly record.

The journal will not guarantee absolute anonymity where disclosure is required by law or is essential to the fair resolution of a matter.

9. Communication and Target Timeframes

IJASCE aims to acknowledge receipt of a complaint or appeal within five business days.

The journal will then determine the appropriate route for assessment and may request additional information when necessary.

IJASCE aims to communicate an outcome within 30 calendar days where the matter can reasonably be resolved within that period. This is a service target rather than a guaranteed deadline.

Complex matters may require additional time, particularly when independent expert advice, institutional involvement, additional documentation, or responses from multiple parties are required. Where a substantial delay occurs, IJASCE should provide an appropriate status update to the complainant or appellant where practicable.

10. Outcomes

The outcome of a complaint depends on the nature of the concern and the available evidence. Appropriate actions may include:

  • determining that no further action is required;

  • providing clarification or an explanation of the journal's procedure or decision;

  • acknowledging and correcting an administrative or procedural error;

  • reconsidering an editorial decision;

  • obtaining additional or independent editorial or peer review;

  • correcting an inappropriate editorial or reviewer communication;

  • reassigning an editor or reviewer where an unmanaged competing interest or other material concern exists;

  • addressing reviewer, editor, or staff conduct through appropriate journal or publisher procedures;

  • referring a research integrity matter to an institution or other competent authority where appropriate;

  • publishing a correction, expression of concern, retraction, apology, or other notice when required to maintain the scholarly record; or

  • taking another proportionate action consistent with the journal's policies and relevant COPE guidance.

Corrective action should be proportionate to the problem identified. The purpose of the complaints and appeals process is to provide fair review, correct errors, protect editorial integrity, and maintain the scholarly record rather than to impose punitive measures unnecessarily.

11. Responsibilities

Complainants and appellants should communicate concerns clearly, accurately, respectfully, and in good faith and should provide relevant evidence where available.

Authors submitting an appeal are responsible for identifying a substantive basis for reconsideration rather than merely restating disagreement with the editorial decision.

Editors must handle complaints and appeals fairly, protect confidentiality, disclose relevant competing interests, and withdraw from handling a matter when their independence could reasonably be questioned.

Reviewers are expected to comply with the journal's standards of confidentiality, independence, professionalism, and ethical peer review and to cooperate with legitimate inquiries concerning their review when appropriate.

The publisher or other designated independent authority may be responsible for handling complaints that cannot appropriately be resolved within the normal editorial structure, particularly complaints involving senior editorial leadership or journal governance.

12. Repeated, Abusive, or Vexatious Communications

IJASCE will assess the substantive content of complaints regardless of the tone or frequency with which a concern is raised. However, repeated submissions of substantially identical complaints that have already been reasonably addressed may be closed unless materially new evidence is provided.

Threatening, abusive, discriminatory, defamatory, or harassing communications are not required for a concern to be considered and may be managed separately. The journal should nevertheless ensure that legitimate evidence contained within such communications is not disregarded solely because of inappropriate presentation.

13. Related Policies and References

14. Review and Updates

This policy was reviewed in September 2026. IJASCE will review and update the policy periodically in response to changes in COPE guidance, journal procedures, or recognized best practices in editorial governance and publication ethics.