Complaints & Appeals

The Indonesian Tourism Journal (ITJ), published by CV. Austronesia Akademika, is committed to editorial fairness, transparency, accountability, confidentiality, and integrity in the publication of research concerning tourism and related interdisciplinary fields. Authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders may report legitimate concerns about the handling of manuscripts, research conduct, editorial procedures, or published articles.

This policy distinguishes complaints about conduct or procedure from appeals seeking reconsideration of a specified editorial decision. All concerns should be evaluated on the basis of available evidence, established journal requirements, and responsible scholarly practice, without discrimination or improper influence.

ITJ considers complaints connected with manuscript evaluation, publication management, and the integrity of tourism scholarship. Concerns should identify a specific event or publication and, wherever possible, include verifiable supporting information.

Complaints should be submitted in writing using the official ITJ editorial contact channel or the OJS submission correspondence function when available. A complete, factual report helps the responsible editor or publisher determine the appropriate next steps.

Information to Include

1. Complainant identification: Name and contact details, with institutional affiliation if applicable.
2. Manuscript or article identification: Submission number, manuscript title, published article details, DOI, or issue reference where available.
3. Description of the issue: The relevant events, dates, decisions, communications, and concerns described objectively.
4. Supporting material: Relevant emails, reviewer comments, manuscript versions, data records, citations, or other verifiable documentation.
5. Policy or procedure involved: The relevant journal requirement, editorial process, or decision where it can be identified.
6. Requested resolution: A clear explanation of the clarification, reassessment, correction, or action being sought.

Complaints involving sensitive fieldwork, interviews, tourist information, community research, or cultural heritage data should avoid disclosing unnecessary personal information in the initial message.

An author may request reconsideration of a specific editorial decision when there are demonstrable grounds to believe that a material error or procedural irregularity influenced that decision. The appeal should identify the disputed decision and provide a clear, evidence-supported explanation.

Where available, appellants should provide their point-by-point explanation and original editorial correspondence. The journal may seek further technical advice if the grounds for appeal warrant scientific reassessment.

Reports should follow a documented process to promote consistency, fairness, and appropriate action. The precise scope of examination depends on the subject, available evidence, and whether independent expertise or institutional involvement is necessary.

Editorial Handling Workflow

Examination and Response

The receiving office should identify the issue, determine whether it falls within ITJ’s editorial responsibility, and refer it to an appropriate editor or authorized publisher representative. Where a complaint concerns the reliability of research findings or ethics approvals, an institution or independent specialist may be consulted as appropriate.

Before a substantive adverse conclusion is made, persons whose actions or research are under review should ordinarily be given an appropriate opportunity to explain their position and submit relevant records. The scope of communication may be limited where confidentiality, data protection, or legal obligations apply.

The person assessing a complaint or appeal should be competent, authorized, and free from a material conflict of interest. Individuals must not independently resolve complaints relating to their own conduct or disputed decision.

Actions should correspond to the facts established, the severity of any issue, and the relevant editorial policies. Outcomes should not be predetermined merely because an accusation or appeal has been filed.

ITJ aims to protect legitimate reports made in good faith, while safeguarding the rights and privacy of individuals whose work or conduct is questioned. Editorial communications and documents should be accessed only by authorized parties with a genuine need to know.

Principles of Responsible Complaint Handling

1. Confidentiality: Protect manuscript files, reviewer identities, unpublished findings, correspondence, and research-participant data.
2. Non-retaliation: Do not penalize individuals for responsibly reporting a credible concern or submitting a reasoned appeal.
3. Professional communication: Require respectful, fact-based communication without harassment or personal attacks.
4. Fair opportunity to respond: Give affected parties an appropriate chance to address substantive allegations.
5. Good-faith distinction: A complaint not supported by sufficient evidence is not automatically malicious; deliberate fabrication or harassment must be assessed separately.
6. Data minimization: Disclose only the information needed for the examination, particularly where tourism research involves identifiable respondents or communities.

Complaints and appeals should be acknowledged and examined without unnecessary delay. The time needed to resolve a matter may vary according to complexity, availability of evidence, institutional cooperation, and the need for independent review. This policy does not establish a fixed response or resolution deadline.

Documentation Requirements

1. Record the complaint or appeal, its date of receipt, and the manuscript or article involved.
2. Identify the individual or authority assigned to examine the case and note any disclosed conflicts.
3. Retain relevant evidence, correspondence, clarifications, expert assessments, and responses.
4. Document the reasoning behind the editorial decision and any corrective actions.
5. Provide proportionate status communication when a matter requires extended examination.
6. Restrict access to sensitive records and retain them in accordance with applicable privacy, institutional, and legal requirements.

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders should submit complaints, requests for reconsideration, or ethical concerns through the journal’s verified official contact channels. The message should state the matter clearly and attach relevant documentation.

Recommended Email Subject Lines

Related journal policies may provide additional guidance on Publication Ethics, Peer Review Process, Plagiarism Issue, and Author Fees.