Complaints and Appeals

Description 

JFU provides a fair process for complaints about journal service, editorial conduct, policy application, and procedural irregularities, and for appeals against editorial decisions. This policy applies to authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other affected parties. 

An appeal must identify a material factual error, procedural error, unmanaged conflict of interest, or substantial misunderstanding that could have affected the decision. Disagreement with a reviewer’s academic judgment, without such grounds, is not sufficient. 

Policy 

  1. Complaints and appeals will be handled respectfully, objectively, confidentially, and without retaliation. 
  2. The person whose conduct or decision is challenged must not be the sole decision-maker in the review of the complaint or appeal. 
  3. A complaint involving the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to an independent senior editor or a publisher-appointed officer who was not involved in the matter. 
  4. Normally, only one appeal will be considered for each editorial decision. A further review may occur when substantial new evidence or a material procedural defect is demonstrated. 
  5. An appeal does not guarantee external re-review, acceptance, or reversal of the original decision. 
  6. JFU aims to acknowledge a complaint or appeal within five working days and to provide a reasoned outcome, or a substantive progress update, within thirty working days. 
  7. Editorial independence will be protected from institutional, commercial, financial, and personal influence. 
  1. Technical Operational Steps 
  1. The complainant sends the manuscript or article identifier, the decision or conduct challenged, the grounds, and supporting evidence to the Journal Office. 
  2. The Journal Office logs the case and classifies it as a service complaint, editorial appeal, misconduct allegation, privacy concern, or correction request. Cases are routed to the applicable policy. 
  3. A non-conflicted editor or publisher-appointed officer confirms eligibility and informs the complainant of the process. 
  4. For an eligible appeal, the deciding officer reviews the manuscript, decision letters, reviewer reports, correspondence, conflict declarations, and the alleged error. Independent advice or additional review may be obtained when necessary. 
  5. The deciding officer may uphold the decision, modify it, reopen peer review, assign a new editor, request corrective action, or refer the matter under another policy. 
  6. The complainant receives a clear written outcome and reasons. Confidential reviewer information and personal data are not disclosed improperly. 
  7. A final escalation to the publisher is available only for alleged procedural failure, unmanaged conflict, or misconduct in handling the case, not for ordinary disagreement over academic judgment. 
  8. Case records are retained for at least five years and reviewed periodically to identify recurring service or governance problems.