Complaints and Appeals

Complaints and Appeals

All academic journals published by institutions under Universitas Islam Darussalam (UID) Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia are committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and rigorous editorial process. We recognize that authors, reviewers, and readers may occasionally have concerns, complaints, or grounds for appeal regarding editorial decisions, publishing conduct, or published content.

This policy outlines the formal procedures for submitting, investigating, and resolving complaints and appeals in full accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

1. General Concerns and Complaints Procedure

Anyone wishing to raise an ethical concern or register a formal complaint regarding any aspect of the publishing process across UID Ciamis journals—including editorial conduct, peer review handling, copyright issues, or administrative services—may submit their complaint via official email to the UID Editorial Office at:

Editorial Secretariat: jurnal.iaid@gmail.com / editorial@uid.ac.id

(Please specify the target journal name, manuscript ID, and detailed nature of the concern in the email subject).

Investigation Trajectory:

  1. Acknowledgment of Receipt: The Editorial Secretariat will formally acknowledge receipt of the complaint within five (5) business days.

  2. Impartial Review: The Research Integrity and Ethics Officer (or designated Editorial Advisory Board representative) will lead an internal assessment following COPE Core Practices to determine whether due editorial procedures, fairness, and ethical standards were observed.

  3. Fact-Finding & Evidence Review: The investigation will review the manuscript’s submission history, peer review records, similarity index, and correspondence between authors, reviewers, and editors. When necessary, external parties (such as independent subject experts or institutional bodies) may be consulted while safeguarding confidentiality.

  4. Resolution Timeline: We aim to conclude investigations and communicate written outcomes to the complainant within six (6) weeks. Complex inquiries involving multiple authors, institutions, or third-party audits may require extended time.

  5. Confidentiality & Due Process: In the interest of allowing fair and unbiased due process, all parties are respectfully requested to maintain strict confidentiality and refrain from public or social media commentary while an inquiry is ongoing.

  6. External Escalation: If a complainant remains unsatisfied that the journal adhered to proper ethical procedures, they may refer the matter directly to the COPE Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee.

2. Complaints Regarding Published Content

All concerns raised by the scientific community regarding published articles (such as suspected plagiarism, data irregularities, undisclosed conflicts of interest, ethical clearance deficits, or improper authorship) will be investigated systematically:

  • Whistleblower Protection: The identity and anonymity of complainants will be protected to the fullest extent possible throughout the inquiry.

  • Collaborative Investigation: Inquiries into published content will be conducted in coordination with the corresponding author and the handling Journal Editor.

  • Corrective Actions: If an investigation substantiates concerns, the Editor-in-Chief will take appropriate corrective actions—ranging from publishing an Author Correction (Corrigendum/Erratum), issuing an Expression of Concern, to executing a formal Retraction in compliance with COPE Retraction Guidelines.

3. Appealing an Editorial Decision (Rejection Appeal)

Journal editors possess broad discretion in determining the thematic fit, novelty, and priority of submissions for their specific journals.

A. Eligibility for Appeal

  • Desk Rejections (Out of Scope / Guideline Non-compliance): Submissions declined during initial desk screening without external peer review are generally not eligible for formal appeal.

  • Post-Peer Review Rejections: An author may submit a formal appeal only if they have concrete evidence that:

    1. A significant factual or technical misunderstanding was made by the reviewers or editors that fundamentally affected the decision; or

    2. There is clear evidence of procedural irregularities, severe bias, or an undisclosed conflict of interest during the peer review process.

B. Appeal Procedure

  • Authors must submit an appeal within 14 days of the rejection notification to the Editor-in-Chief.

  • The appeal must include a detailed, polite, point-by-point rebuttal with robust scientific evidence addressing each reviewer/editor comment.

  • The Editor-in-Chief and an independent Editorial Board member will evaluate the appeal:

    • If the rebuttal demonstrates clear scientific merit, the manuscript may be sent for a new round of independent review.

    • If the original decision is upheld as scientifically sound and procedurally correct, the decision is final, and no further appeals for the same manuscript will be considered.

  • (Note: Administrative staff do not adjudicate differences of scientific opinion; final authority rests with the Editor-in-Chief).

4. Appealing Post-Publication Corrective Actions

If a published article is subject to corrective action (such as a Retraction or Expression of Concern), the corresponding author will be notified in writing and provided an opportunity to respond.

  • Submitting New Evidence: Authors may appeal a proposed post-publication corrective measure only if substantial new, verifiable evidence impacting the underlying findings is submitted before the specified deadline.

  • Final Decision: The appeal will be evaluated by the Journal Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the UID Ethics Advisory Board and independent scientific experts. The resulting decision regarding retraction or correction is final and conclusive.