Complaints and Appeals Policy

  1. Introduction

The Studies of Social Sciences (TSSS) is committed to maintaining a high-quality, transparent, fair, and accountable scholarly publication process for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and other stakeholders. The journal recognizes that concerns, disagreements, or disputes may occasionally arise during manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, publication, or post-publication activities.

This policy establishes clear procedures for submitting, assessing, investigating, and resolving complaints relating to the journal's policies, editorial procedures, professional conduct, and publication practices. It also provides a formal mechanism for authors seeking reconsideration of editorial decisions concerning their submitted manuscripts.

TSSS is committed to addressing complaints and appeals constructively, impartially, confidentially, and within reasonable timeframes, in accordance with the principles and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The policy aims to protect the rights of all parties involved, maintain editorial independence, strengthen accountability, and promote continuous improvement in scholarly publishing.

  1. Description

This policy distinguishes between complaints and appeals.

2.1. Complaints

A complaint is a formal expression of dissatisfaction submitted by an individual or group concerning the journal's policies, procedures, editorial practices, professional conduct, or published content.

Complaints may concern:

  • Unreasonable delays in manuscript handling, peer review, editorial decisions, or publication.
  • Inappropriate conduct by editors, editorial board members, reviewers, or journal staff.
  • Technical difficulties affecting manuscript submission, editorial communication, or publication.
  • Inconsistencies in implementing stated editorial policies or publication procedures.
  • Concerns regarding transparency, fairness, or editorial independence.
  • Alleged procedural irregularities in the peer-review process.
  • Inappropriate communication or unprofessional behavior during manuscript evaluation.
  • Concerns regarding the journal's management or compliance with publication ethics principles.
  • Other matters affecting the quality, fairness, credibility, or integrity of the journal's publication processes.

Complaints concerning suspected research or publication misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, unethical authorship, or manipulation of peer review, will ordinarily be handled under TSSS's Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

However, complaints concerning how an allegation of misconduct was handled may be considered under this Complaints and Appeals Policy.

2.2. Appeals

An appeal is a formal request submitted by an author or group of authors asking the journal to reconsider an editorial decision concerning a submitted manuscript.

Appeals generally concern decisions to reject a manuscript but may also involve substantial procedural irregularities or other editorial decisions that materially affect the manuscript's evaluation.

Authors must provide clear grounds and supporting evidence demonstrating why reconsideration is warranted.

An appeal is not an opportunity to obtain a different editorial decision merely because the authors disagree with reviewers' academic judgments.

2.3. Objectives of the Policy

This policy aims to:

  1. Provide a transparent and accessible mechanism for submitting complaints and appeals.
  2. Ensure fair, consistent, and impartial assessment of reported concerns.
  3. Protect editorial independence and the integrity of scholarly publication.
  4. Ensure that complainants and appellants are treated respectfully and without retaliation.
  5. Establish appropriate procedures for handling disputes and reconsidering editorial decisions.
  6. Promote accountability and continuous improvement in journal management and publication practices.
  1. Policy

3.1. Commitment to a Fair Process

TSSS is committed to handling all legitimate complaints and appeals through fair, objective, transparent, and consistent procedures.

Each submission will be assessed according to its nature, seriousness, supporting evidence, and relevance to the journal's responsibilities.

Individuals responsible for investigating a complaint or appeal must remain impartial and must not have any relevant conflicts of interest.

3.2. Confidentiality

All complaints and appeals will be handled with appropriate confidentiality.

Information will be disclosed only to individuals directly involved in the assessment, investigation, or resolution process, except where disclosure is required by applicable law, institutional regulations, or publication ethics procedures.

The identity of complainants and appellants will be protected wherever reasonably possible.

3.3. Timeliness

TSSS will acknowledge receipt of complaints and appeals promptly, normally within 5–7 working days.

The journal will seek to investigate and resolve concerns within a reasonable timeframe, taking into account the complexity of the case and the availability of relevant evidence.

Where an investigation requires additional time, the complainant or appellant will be informed of significant delays when appropriate.

3.4. Constructive Engagement

TSSS regards complaints and appeals as opportunities to identify procedural weaknesses, improve editorial practices, and strengthen communication with the scholarly community.

All parties are expected to communicate respectfully and cooperate in resolving legitimate concerns.

3.5. Protection Against Retaliation

TSSS prohibits retaliation, intimidation, or discriminatory treatment against individuals who submit complaints or appeals in good faith.

The submission of a legitimate complaint or appeal must not adversely affect an author's opportunity to submit future manuscripts or participate in the journal's scholarly activities.

3.6. Grounds for Appeal

Appeals against editorial decisions will be considered when authors provide credible evidence of one or more of the following:

  1. Significant Factual or Methodological Errors

A substantial misunderstanding or factual error by reviewers or editors that materially influenced the editorial decision.

  1. New and Substantive Evidence

Relevant evidence or information that was unavailable during the original review and that directly addresses the principal reasons for rejection.

  1. Procedural Irregularities

Evidence that the manuscript was not evaluated according to the journal's established peer-review policies or editorial procedures.

  1. Reviewer or Editorial Bias

Credible evidence of bias, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other circumstances that may have compromised the independence or fairness of the manuscript evaluation.

  1. Misinterpretation of Research Findings

A demonstrable misinterpretation of essential research findings, data analyses, theoretical arguments, or methodological procedures that significantly affected the editorial decision.

Appeals based solely on dissatisfaction with academic judgments, differences in scholarly interpretation, or preferences concerning reviewers' recommendations will generally not be accepted.

3.7. Frivolous or Vexatious Complaints and Appeals

TSSS reserves the right to decline complaints or appeals that are demonstrably without merit, abusive, repetitive without new evidence, or outside the scope of this policy.

Such decisions must be made objectively and must not be used to suppress legitimate concerns or discourage good-faith reporting.

  1. Technical Implementation of the Policy
  2. Procedure for Handling Complaints

4.1. Submission of a Complaint

Complaints must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief of The Studies of Social Sciences (TSSS) through the journal's official communication channels.

Official Journal Website:

https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/v3/index.php/ssj/index

Contact Information:

https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/v3/index.php/ssj/about/contact

A complaint should include:

  1. The complainant's name and contact information, where appropriate.
  2. A clear description of the issue or concern.
  3. Relevant dates and circumstances.
  4. Names or positions of individuals involved, where applicable.
  5. The manuscript identification number or published article DOI, if relevant.
  6. Supporting documentation, correspondence, or other evidence.
  7. The outcome or resolution sought by the complainant.

Anonymous complaints may be considered when they contain sufficient credible and verifiable information.

4.2. Acknowledgment of Complaints

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editorial office representative will acknowledge receipt of the complaint, normally within 5–7 working days.

The acknowledgment should confirm that the complaint has been received and explain the next steps where appropriate.

4.3. Initial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether:

  • The complaint falls within the scope of the journal's responsibilities.
  • Sufficient information has been provided.
  • Additional documentation or clarification is required.
  • The matter should be handled under another journal policy.
  • A conflict of interest requires the complaint to be assigned to an independent editorial representative.

Complaints concerning research misconduct will ordinarily be referred to the journal's relevant publication ethics procedures.

4.4. Investigation

When a complaint warrants further examination, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated independent representative will conduct an impartial investigation.

The investigation may involve:

  1. Reviewing manuscript records and editorial correspondence.
  2. Examining relevant journal policies and editorial procedures.
  3. Consulting editorial board members or journal staff.
  4. Requesting explanations from individuals involved.
  5. Reviewing relevant peer-review reports and editorial decisions.
  6. Seeking independent advice when necessary.

Individuals whose conduct is the subject of a complaint must not control or determine the outcome of the investigation.

4.5. Resolution and Response

Following the investigation, the journal will communicate its findings and decisions to the complainant in writing.

Possible outcomes include:

  • Providing an explanation or clarification.
  • Acknowledging procedural errors.
  • Issuing an apology where appropriate.
  • Correcting administrative or editorial mistakes.
  • Reviewing or improving journal policies.
  • Implementing appropriate corrective measures.
  • Referring serious concerns to the publisher or other competent authorities.
  • Dismissing the complaint when the available evidence does not substantiate the concern.

The response should explain the basis of the decision while respecting applicable confidentiality requirements.

4.6. Escalation of Complaints

If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response provided by the Editor-in-Chief, they may request further consideration by the journal's publisher or an appropriately designated institutional representative.

Publisher:

Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Manado, Indonesia.

Journal Publishing Institution:

Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (LPPM), Universitas Sam Ratulangi.

Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief should be referred directly to an independent representative of the publisher or another appropriately authorized individual.

For complex publication ethics matters, the journal may consult relevant COPE guidance.

COPE's guidance may assist the journal in evaluating ethical issues, but COPE should not be represented as an automatic external appeals tribunal.

  1. Procedure for Handling Appeals

4.7. Submission of an Appeal

Authors seeking reconsideration of an editorial decision must submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

The appeal must be submitted by the corresponding author within 30 calendar days of receiving the original editorial decision.

The appeal letter should include:

  1. The manuscript title and identification number.
  2. The date and nature of the editorial decision.
  3. A clear explanation of the grounds for appeal.
  4. A detailed, point-by-point response to the relevant reviewer and editor comments.
  5. Supporting evidence demonstrating material factual errors, procedural irregularities, or other valid grounds for reconsideration.
  6. Any additional documentation necessary to substantiate the appeal.

A revised manuscript should not be submitted with the appeal unless the journal specifically requests it or the original editorial decision explicitly permits resubmission as part of the appeals procedure.

4.8. Initial Assessment of an Appeal

The Editor-in-Chief will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the appeal satisfies the criteria established in this policy.

The assessment will consider:

  • Whether the appeal was submitted within the specified period.
  • Whether the appeal identifies valid grounds for reconsideration.
  • Whether the supporting evidence is relevant and sufficiently detailed.
  • Whether the concerns could materially affect the original editorial decision.

Appeals that do not satisfy these requirements may be declined with an appropriate explanation.

4.9. Appeal Investigation and Reconsideration

If an appeal has sufficient merit, the Editor-in-Chief will initiate an appropriate reconsideration process.

This may include:

  1. Reviewing the original manuscript and editorial decision.
  2. Re-examining the reviewers' reports.
  3. Evaluating the authors' rebuttal and supporting evidence.
  4. Consulting the original handling editor or reviewers when appropriate.
  5. Seeking an independent opinion from another editorial board member.
  6. Assigning an independent external expert to assess specific disputed issues.
  7. Conducting an additional round of peer review when necessary.

Where the original Editor-in-Chief or handling editor has a relevant conflict of interest, the appeal must be evaluated by an appropriately designated independent editor or institutional representative.

The reconsideration process must preserve reviewer confidentiality and editorial independence.

4.10. Decision on Appeal

Following the reconsideration process, the Editor-in-Chief or designated independent decision-maker will issue a written decision.

The decision will explain whether the appeal has been accepted or rejected and provide the principal reasons for the outcome.

The decision made through the journal's final appeals procedure is binding within the editorial process, without prejudice to any applicable institutional or legal procedures.

TSSS will normally consider only one formal appeal per manuscript unless exceptional circumstances or significant new evidence justify further review.

4.11. Possible Outcomes of an Appeal

An appeal may result in one of the following outcomes:

  1. Original Decision Upheld

The original editorial decision remains unchanged because the appeal does not demonstrate sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

  1. Additional Peer Review

The manuscript is referred for further assessment, potentially involving new independent reviewers.

  1. Original Decision Reconsidered

The original decision is overturned, and the manuscript returns to the appropriate stage of editorial evaluation.

This may involve additional revision, further peer review, or another editorial assessment.

  1. Editorial Decision Revised

The manuscript receives a revised decision based on the findings of the appeal assessment.

  1. Rejection Maintained with Clarification

The manuscript remains rejected, but the journal provides additional explanation or clarification concerning the grounds for rejection.

Acceptance of an appeal does not automatically guarantee acceptance of the manuscript for publication.

  1. Record Keeping

4.12. Documentation and Confidentiality

TSSS will maintain appropriate confidential records of complaints and appeals, including:

  • Written submissions and supporting evidence.
  • Relevant editorial correspondence.
  • Initial assessments.
  • Investigation procedures.
  • Consultation records.
  • Decisions and explanations.
  • Corrective actions.
  • Appeal outcomes.

These records will be accessible only to authorized individuals and managed in accordance with applicable institutional and data protection requirements.

Documentation may be used to identify recurring concerns, evaluate editorial performance, and improve the journal's publication policies and procedures.

4.13. Policy Review and Continuous Improvement

This Complaints and Appeals Policy will be reviewed periodically and updated as necessary to reflect developments in scholarly publishing practices, institutional requirements, and international publication ethics standards.

The journal is committed to using relevant feedback and documented concerns to strengthen the fairness, transparency, efficiency, and credibility of its editorial processes.

The Studies of Social Sciences (TSSS) remains committed to maintaining a professional, accountable, and ethically responsible scholarly publication environment.

References and Resources

  1. COPE — Complaints and Appeals
  2. COPE — Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
  3. COPE — Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office
  4. COPE — Submitting a Complaint Against a COPE Member
  5. COPE — Repeated Complaints About a Review
  6. COPE — Dealing with Concerns About the Integrity of Published Research
  7. The Studies of Social Sciences — Official Journal Website