Complaints and Appeals

Complaints and Appeals Policy

1. Introduction

Andalasian Livestock (ALive) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, accountable, and independent editorial and publishing process. The journal recognizes the right of authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders to raise concerns about its editorial procedures, policies, professional conduct, and publication decisions.

The journal acknowledges that disagreements may arise during manuscript submission, editorial screening, peer review, publication, or post-publication assessment. Such concerns must be addressed through an accessible, impartial, and appropriately documented process.

This Complaints and Appeals Policy establishes the principles and procedures for submitting, reviewing, resolving, and escalating complaints and appeals.

The policy is informed by the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly those relating to complaints and appeals, editorial independence, conflicts of interest, and publication integrity.

2. Description

2.1. Complaints

A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction or concern about the journal's policies, procedures, editorial conduct, administrative services, or handling of a publication-related matter.

Complaints may concern:

  • Unreasonable delays in manuscript processing or editorial communication.

  • Alleged unfairness, inconsistency, or procedural irregularities.

  • Inappropriate professional conduct by editors, reviewers, or journal staff.

  • Suspected breaches of confidentiality.

  • Failure to follow published journal policies.

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest affecting editorial handling.

  • Problems relating to publication services, author communication, or administrative procedures.

  • Concerns about the conduct or responsibilities of the journal or its publisher.

  • The manner in which an ethical concern or post-publication issue has been handled.

A complaint may be submitted by an author, reviewer, reader, research institution, or other person with a legitimate concern.

2.2. Appeals

An appeal is a formal request for reconsideration of a specific editorial decision.

Appeals generally concern decisions such as manuscript rejection or other significant editorial determinations.

An appeal must identify a reasonable basis for reconsideration, such as a material factual error, procedural irregularity, demonstrable bias, or significant misunderstanding affecting the original decision.

An appeal is not an automatic opportunity to obtain a new peer review or reverse an unfavorable decision.

2.3. Distinction Between Complaints and Allegations of Misconduct

Complaints about editorial processes are handled under this policy.

Allegations involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, peer-review manipulation, authorship misconduct, or other research integrity concerns are handled primarily under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

Where a submission raises both procedural concerns and allegations of misconduct, the journal may coordinate the relevant procedures while maintaining fairness and confidentiality.

3. Policy

3.1. Right to Submit a Complaint or Appeal

Andalasian Livestock recognizes the right of relevant stakeholders to submit legitimate complaints or appeals in good faith.

The journal will assess concerns according to their substance and supporting evidence rather than the complainant's academic status, institutional affiliation, nationality, or professional relationship with the journal.

Complaints and appeals must be considered without discrimination or improper influence.

3.2. Fairness and Impartiality

All complaints and appeals must be handled objectively and consistently.

The person responsible for reviewing a case must not have a conflict of interest that could compromise impartiality.

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief or another person who would ordinarily manage the case, responsibility must be transferred to an appropriately qualified and independent individual or authorized publishing representative.

The journal will provide affected parties with a reasonable opportunity to explain their position where appropriate.

3.3. Confidentiality

The journal will treat complaints, appeals, supporting evidence, and related correspondence with appropriate confidentiality.

Information will be disclosed only to individuals or organizations whose involvement is reasonably necessary for assessment or resolution, or where disclosure is required by applicable law.

The identity of a complainant will be protected where reasonably possible, although absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

The confidentiality of peer-review reports and reviewer identities will be maintained in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer-review policy.

3.4. Timely Handling

The editorial office will acknowledge receipt of complaints and appeals within a reasonable period.

The journal will seek to resolve cases without unnecessary delay.

The time required for resolution may vary according to the complexity of the concern, availability of evidence, need for independent consultation, or involvement of research institutions.

Where substantial delays occur, the journal should provide an appropriate update to the complainant or appellant.

Operational service targets: [INSERT EDITORIALLY APPROVED ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND RESOLUTION TIMEFRAMES, IF ADOPTED]

3.5. Protection Against Retaliation

Individuals who submit complaints or appeals in good faith must not be subjected to retaliation or unfair treatment because they raised a legitimate concern.

The journal will not penalize an author solely for submitting a properly supported appeal.

However, this protection does not prevent the journal from addressing abusive communication, deliberate misrepresentation, or misconduct through appropriate procedures.

3.6. Grounds for Editorial Appeals

An appeal may be considered when the corresponding author provides credible evidence of one or more of the following circumstances.

A. Material Factual Error

The editorial decision was substantially influenced by an objectively verifiable error concerning the manuscript, its data, methods, or findings.

B. Significant Procedural Irregularity

The editorial or peer-review process materially departed from the journal's published procedures in a way that may have affected the decision.

C. Demonstrable Bias or Conflict of Interest

Credible evidence indicates that an undisclosed conflict of interest or improper bias may have compromised the editorial assessment.

D. Material Misunderstanding

The decision was based on a significant misunderstanding of the research that can be demonstrated using the information available in the submitted manuscript.

E. Other Substantial New Evidence

New information establishes a compelling reason to reconsider the fairness or validity of the original decision.

An appeal based solely on disagreement with reviewers' academic opinions, dissatisfaction with a rejection, or preference for different reviewers will not ordinarily justify reconsideration.

3.7. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must be based on the scientific quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, ethical acceptability, and suitability of the submitted work.

The submission of a complaint or appeal does not create an entitlement to manuscript acceptance.

The publisher, sponsors, institutional administrators, and other parties must not improperly influence the editorial outcome.

The journal will preserve editorial independence throughout the complaint and appeal process.

3.8. Complaints Against Editors or Journal Staff

Complaints concerning the conduct of editors, editorial board members, or journal staff must be reviewed by an individual who is not directly implicated in the matter.

Where the Editor-in-Chief is the subject of a complaint, the case should be referred to an appropriate independent representative or authorized journal management body.

Independent escalation authority: [INSERT VERIFIED PUBLISHER REPRESENTATIVE OR DESIGNATED INDEPENDENT CONTACT]

The journal should ensure that individuals who are the subject of a complaint do not determine the outcome of their own case.

3.9. Complaints Against the Journal or Publisher

Concerns relating to journal governance, editorial independence, administrative practices, financial transparency, or publisher conduct may be submitted through the designated complaint channel.

Where the matter cannot be resolved by the editorial office, it should be referred to the appropriate authorized management or oversight body.

The journal will not represent COPE as an external appellate authority or dispute-resolution service.

COPE guidance may inform the journal's procedures, but any external referral must comply with the relevant organization's actual eligibility requirements.

3.10. Handling Repetitive or Abusive Complaints

The journal will assess complaints on their merits, including concerns raised by individuals who have previously submitted complaints.

Repeated submissions will not be rejected automatically when they contain relevant new evidence.

However, the journal may limit further correspondence concerning a matter that has been appropriately assessed and resolved when subsequent communications provide no material new information.

Threatening, discriminatory, or abusive communications may be managed through proportionate measures that protect journal personnel while preserving legitimate avenues for raising research integrity concerns.

4. Implementation and Procedures

4.1. Procedure for Submitting a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the editorial office.

Complaint contact: [INSERT VERIFIED OFFICIAL EDITORIAL EMAIL]

The submission should contain:

  1. The complainant's name and contact details, where provided.

  2. A clear description of the concern.

  3. The relevant manuscript ID, article title, DOI, or other identifying information, if applicable.

  4. The date or approximate period of the relevant events.

  5. Supporting correspondence, documents, or other evidence.

  6. The outcome or corrective action requested, where applicable.

Anonymous complaints may be considered when sufficient credible information is available to permit an assessment.

4.2. Acknowledgment and Registration

The editorial office should acknowledge receipt of the complaint and maintain an appropriate confidential record.

The record should identify the nature of the complaint, the responsible case handler, relevant documentation, and subsequent actions.

Acknowledgment does not imply that the complaint has been substantiated.

4.3. Preliminary Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated independent editor should determine:

  • Whether the concern falls within the scope of this policy.

  • Whether sufficient information has been provided.

  • Whether the matter should be handled under another journal policy.

  • Whether a conflict of interest requires reassignment.

  • Whether additional documentation or clarification is necessary.

Complaints involving suspected research or publication misconduct should be considered under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

4.4. Investigation of Complaints

Where further examination is justified, the responsible editor may:

  • Review editorial correspondence and manuscript processing records.

  • Examine relevant journal policies and documented procedures.

  • Request explanations from editors, reviewers, or journal staff.

  • Seek advice from an independent editorial board member.

  • Consult the publisher or another appropriate authority.

  • Request additional supporting evidence from the complainant.

The assessment must remain proportionate to the seriousness and nature of the concern.

4.5. Resolution of Complaints

Following assessment, the journal should communicate an appropriate written response to the complainant.

Possible outcomes include:

  • An explanation or clarification of journal procedures.

  • Acknowledgment of an administrative or editorial error.

  • Correction of inaccurate information.

  • Reassessment of a procedural decision.

  • Referral to an independent editor or appropriate oversight body.

  • Improvement of editorial or administrative procedures.

  • No further action where the complaint is not substantiated.

Where appropriate, the response should explain the reasons for the decision and any action taken, subject to confidentiality requirements.

4.6. Escalation of Unresolved Complaints

A complainant who believes that the initial response failed to address a substantial concern may request further review.

The request should identify the unresolved issues and provide relevant reasons or supporting evidence.

The matter should be referred to an appropriately independent editor, authorized publishing representative, or other designated oversight body.

Escalation contact: [INSERT VERIFIED INDEPENDENT CONTACT OR AUTHORIZED PUBLISHER CONTACT]

The journal should ensure that the escalation reviewer was not responsible for the original decision where practicable.

5. Editorial Appeals Procedure

5.1. Submission of an Appeal

An appeal against a manuscript decision should normally be submitted by the corresponding author.

The appeal must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's designated communication channel.

Appeal contact: [INSERT VERIFIED OFFICIAL EDITORIAL EMAIL]

Appeal submission period: [INSERT EDITORIALLY APPROVED DEADLINE, IF ADOPTED]

The appeal should include:

  1. The manuscript title and identification number.

  2. The original editorial decision and its date.

  3. A clear explanation of the grounds for appeal.

  4. Specific evidence of a factual error, procedural irregularity, bias, or material misunderstanding.

  5. A reasoned response to the relevant editorial and reviewer comments.

  6. Supporting documentation where necessary.

An appeal should not be treated as a routine revised submission.

Authors should not submit a replacement manuscript as part of the appeal unless specifically instructed by the editorial office.

5.2. Preliminary Eligibility Assessment

The editorial office will assess whether the appeal presents a substantive basis for reconsideration.

An appeal may be declined at this stage when it:

  • Contains no specific grounds for reconsideration.

  • Merely repeats disagreement with scientific assessments.

  • Provides no material information relevant to the original decision.

  • Concerns a matter outside the journal's responsibility.

  • Repeats an appeal already resolved without new evidence.

The corresponding author should be informed of the outcome of this preliminary assessment.

5.3. Independent Review of the Appeal

Consistent with the journal's stated publication ethics commitments, an appeal against an editorial decision should be assessed by an appropriately qualified editor who was not involved in the original decision.

The independent reviewer may examine:

  • The submitted manuscript.

  • The original reviewer reports.

  • Editorial correspondence and decision records.

  • The author's written appeal.

  • Relevant journal policies.

  • Additional expert advice where justified.

If necessary, the journal may invite an independent specialist to provide further assessment.

Reviewer confidentiality and editorial independence must be maintained.

5.4. Possible Appeal Outcomes

Following review, the journal may determine that:

A. The Original Decision Is Upheld

The available evidence does not justify changing the original decision.

B. The Manuscript Requires Additional Evaluation

A material issue warrants further editorial consideration or additional independent peer review.

C. The Original Decision Is Reconsidered

A significant error or procedural flaw justifies reopening the editorial assessment.

D. The Appeal Is Partially Upheld

Some concerns are substantiated, but the original editorial outcome remains unchanged or requires only procedural clarification.

A successful appeal does not automatically result in manuscript acceptance.

5.5. Communication of Appeal Decisions

The journal should provide the corresponding author with a written explanation of the appeal outcome.

The communication should identify the main basis for the decision and any subsequent editorial steps, where applicable.

The journal may establish reasonable limits on repeated appeals concerning the same manuscript, while remaining willing to consider substantial new evidence.

5.6. Appeals Concerning Publication Ethics Decisions

Appeals relating to corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other publication ethics decisions should be considered in conjunction with the journal's relevant ethics policies.

Where necessary, the journal may consult independent expertise or relevant institutional findings.

The purpose of such an appeal is to evaluate whether the decision was fair, adequately supported, and procedurally appropriate.

An appeal must not delay a necessary action to protect the scholarly record without adequate justification.

6. Recordkeeping and Quality Improvement

The editorial office should maintain secure records of complaints and appeals, including:

  • The original submission.

  • Relevant supporting evidence.

  • Correspondence with the parties involved.

  • The identity or role of the responsible case handler.

  • Assessments and independent advice.

  • Decisions and reasons.

  • Corrective actions and follow-up measures.

COPE resources