Complaints & Appeals

The Journal of Advanced Food Technology, Cultivation, and Innovation (JAFTCI) is committed to maintaining fairness, transparency, accountability, editorial independence, and integrity throughout the scholarly publication process. The journal recognizes the right of authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, institutions, and other stakeholders to raise legitimate complaints and request reconsideration of editorial decisions.

JAFTCI provides a documented mechanism for handling complaints concerning editorial procedures, peer-review practices, research integrity, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, journal administration, and other matters affecting the reliability and fairness of scholarly publishing.

This policy also establishes procedures for appeals against editorial decisions. Complaints and appeals are considered impartially, confidentially where appropriate, and without retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith. The policy is informed by the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

⚖️ 01. General Principles of Complaints and Appeals

JAFTCI considers complaints and appeals according to established principles of procedural fairness, scientific accountability, evidence-based evaluation, professional independence, and appropriate confidentiality.

Core Principles

  1. Fairness: All complaints and appeals must receive impartial consideration based on their substance and supporting evidence.
  2. Transparency: Relevant complaint-handling procedures and editorial decisions must be appropriately documented.
  3. Editorial Independence: Investigations and decisions must be free from inappropriate personal, professional, financial, or institutional influence.
  4. Confidentiality: Personal information, confidential manuscripts, reviewer identities, and sensitive editorial records must be protected.
  5. Non-Retaliation: Individuals submitting legitimate concerns in good faith must not be subjected to retaliation or discriminatory treatment.
  6. Evidence-Based Evaluation: Complaints and appeals must be assessed through relevant documentation and verifiable information.
  7. Procedural Accountability: Editorial personnel must avoid investigating or deciding matters in which they have a relevant conflict of interest.
  8. Reasonable Communication: Relevant parties should receive appropriate acknowledgement, clarification, and information about the outcome, subject to confidentiality requirements.

📋 02. Types of Complaints

JAFTCI accepts complaints involving suspected irregularities, unethical conduct, procedural deficiencies, or other matters related to manuscript evaluation, scholarly publication, and editorial administration.

📝 Editorial Procedures

Concerns regarding manuscript handling, editorial communication, inappropriate delays, failure to follow published policies, or significant procedural irregularities.

🔍 Peer Review Conduct

Allegations of inappropriate reviewer conduct, compromised peer review, undisclosed conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, or scientifically improper assessment.

🛡️ Research Integrity

Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate data manipulation, questionable authorship, or inaccurate scientific reporting.

👥 Authorship and Attribution

Disputes concerning author identification, author contributions, inappropriate attribution, undisclosed contributors, and improper use of intellectual materials.

⚖️ Conflicts of Interest

Potential financial, institutional, professional, or personal interests that may improperly affect editorial decisions or manuscript evaluation.

🔐 Confidentiality and Privacy

Unauthorized disclosure of unpublished manuscripts, reviewer information, personal data, confidential correspondence, or restricted research materials.

💳 Publication Fees and Administration

Concerns regarding unauthorized payment requests, misleading publication information, improper financial influence, or inconsistency with the journal's free-of-charge publication policy.

📚 Published Content and Ethical Compliance

Complaints concerning publication errors, inadequate research ethics safeguards, undisclosed misconduct, misleading claims, or inappropriate post-publication handling.

📨 03. Submitting a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the JAFTCI editorial office through the journal's official Contact page or authorized OJS editorial correspondence. Complaints should provide sufficiently specific information to enable an appropriate preliminary assessment.

Official Complaints Submission Channel

Journal: Journal of Advanced Food Technology, Cultivation, and Innovation

Editorial Contact: https://journal.austrodemika.org/index.php/jaftci/about/contact

Required Complaint Information

  1. Identification: Provide the manuscript title, submission ID, article DOI, or published article URL where relevant.
  2. Description: Explain the concern clearly, identifying the circumstances and specific issue involved.
  3. Supporting Evidence: Attach relevant correspondence, research documents, references, reports, or other verifiable information.
  4. Chronology: Provide important dates, communications, editorial decisions, or other events where applicable.
  5. Relevant Interests: Disclose any personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships that may be relevant to the complaint.
  6. Requested Resolution: Identify the clarification, correction, procedural review, or other outcome being requested.
  7. Contact Information: Provide appropriate contact details to facilitate follow-up communication.

Anonymous Complaints: Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable evidence. The absence of identifying information may limit the editorial office's ability to request clarification or communicate the outcome.

🔄 04. Complaint Handling Procedure

JAFTCI follows a structured complaint-handling process designed to ensure that reported concerns are examined fairly, confidentially where appropriate, and with sufficient regard for the rights and responsibilities of the individuals involved.

  1. Stage 1. Receipt and Registration: The editorial office receives the complaint, records its essential information, and identifies the manuscript, article, or editorial procedure concerned.
  2. Stage 2. Preliminary Assessment: The responsible editor determines whether the complaint contains sufficient information, falls within the journal's responsibilities, and warrants further examination.
  3. Stage 3. Conflict-of-Interest Screening: The editorial office identifies any relevant conflicts of interest and assigns the complaint to an appropriate independent or impartial editor.
  4. Stage 4. Evidence Examination: Relevant manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, research documents, and supporting materials are assessed according to the nature of the complaint.
  5. Stage 5. Clarification and Response: Relevant parties may be invited to provide explanations, documentary evidence, or clarification of disputed information.
  6. Stage 6. Independent Consultation: Qualified specialists, institutional representatives, or other appropriate parties may be consulted when specialized scientific or ethical assessment is required.
  7. Stage 7. Editorial Determination: The authorized editor evaluates the available evidence and determines the appropriate corrective, procedural, administrative, or publication-related response.
  8. Stage 8. Communication and Documentation: The editorial office records the decision and communicates an appropriate explanation to relevant parties, subject to confidentiality and data protection requirements.

The duration of complaint handling depends on the complexity of the issue, the availability of relevant evidence, and whether external experts or institutions must be consulted. JAFTCI seeks to respond within a reasonable period and to communicate substantial delays when appropriate.

👤 05. Complaints Against Editors and Editorial Personnel

Complaints involving an editor, editorial board member, reviewer, or journal administrator must be handled by an appropriately authorized person who is not directly implicated in the reported concern.

An editor who is personally involved in the alleged conduct must not independently investigate or determine the outcome of the complaint.

Independent Editorial Handling

Complaints Against Editors: Matters involving a handling editor or editorial board member should be assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

Complaints Against the Editor-in-Chief: Concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief must be referred to the publisher or an appropriately authorized independent oversight representative for impartial examination.

Complaints Against the Publisher: Concerns involving publisher conduct should be referred to an appropriate independent management or oversight representative who is not implicated in the matter.

Editorial Independence Principle: No individual should investigate or determine the outcome of a complaint concerning their own conduct. Appropriate separation of responsibilities must be maintained throughout the assessment and decision-making process.

📝 06. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they can identify a substantive factual error, significant procedural irregularity, material misunderstanding, relevant conflict of interest, or other evidence that may have affected the original assessment.

An appeal must present a reasoned explanation and supporting documentation. Disagreement with an unfavorable editorial decision, without identifiable scientific or procedural grounds, does not independently justify reconsideration.

Valid Grounds for Editorial Appeals

  1. Material Factual Error: An identifiable factual error in a reviewer report or editorial assessment materially affected the decision.
  2. Procedural Irregularity: The published peer-review or editorial procedures were not appropriately followed.
  3. Significant Misunderstanding: A major methodological, scientific, or analytical element was materially misunderstood or inaccurately represented.
  4. Conflict of Interest: Relevant evidence suggests that a reviewer or editor had an undisclosed interest compromising the independence of the assessment.
  5. New Relevant Evidence: Previously unavailable evidence provides reasonable grounds to reconsider a material aspect of the editorial decision.
  6. Other Substantive Grounds: Documented circumstances demonstrate that reconsideration is reasonably necessary to maintain procedural fairness or scientific integrity.

📤 07. Appeal Submission and Review Procedure

Appeals should be submitted in writing by the corresponding author through official OJS editorial correspondence or the journal's designated Contact page. The submission must clearly identify the challenged decision and provide sufficient evidence to support reconsideration.

Required Appeal Information

  1. Manuscript title and submission identification number.
  2. Name and contact details of the corresponding author.
  3. Date and type of the editorial decision being challenged.
  4. Specific grounds for reconsideration.
  5. A reasoned response to relevant reviewer or editorial comments.
  6. Supporting scientific evidence or documentation.
  7. Any additional information relevant to the integrity or fairness of the editorial decision.

Appeals should, where practicable, be evaluated by a qualified editor who did not make the disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. Additional independent scientific assessment may be requested when necessary.

Possible Appeal Outcomes

1. Decision Upheld: The original editorial decision remains unchanged following reconsideration.

2. Additional Assessment: Further evaluation by an editor or qualified independent reviewer is required.

3. Reconsideration: The manuscript is reopened for further editorial consideration.

4. Procedural Correction: An identified irregularity is addressed through an appropriate editorial or administrative remedy.

An appeal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance, publication, a new peer-review process, or reversal of the original decision. Editorial outcomes must continue to reflect scientific merit, publication ethics, and the journal's established standards.

📚 08. Complaints Concerning Published Articles

Complaints about published articles may involve errors in research findings, methodological deficiencies, scientific misrepresentation, inappropriate attribution, ethical irregularities, or concerns regarding the reliability of published evidence.

Substantive complaints concerning the published scholarly record must be considered under the journal's applicable Publication Ethics, Post-Publication Discussion, and Corrections, Retractions & Withdrawal policies.

✏️ Correction

A correction may be issued when an identified error requires amendment but the principal scientific findings remain sufficiently reliable.

⚠️ Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when material questions about article reliability remain unresolved and readers should be informed.

↩️ Retraction

A retraction may be necessary when the published findings are seriously unreliable or a substantial research or publication ethics violation has been established.

🔍 Further Scientific Investigation

Additional evidence, expert assessment, author clarification, or institutional investigation may be required before an appropriate editorial response can be determined.

Concerns about publication integrity must be assessed according to their supporting evidence. A complaint alone does not establish that an article is unreliable or that misconduct has occurred.

🔐 09. Confidentiality, Non-Retaliation, and Responsible Conduct

JAFTCI recognizes that individuals reporting potential research misconduct, procedural irregularities, or editorial concerns may require confidentiality and protection from inappropriate retaliation.

The journal will take reasonable measures to protect sensitive information and ensure that complaints submitted in good faith do not result in discriminatory editorial treatment.

Confidentiality and Protection Requirements

  • Restrict access to sensitive complaint documents and confidential editorial information.
  • Protect reviewer identities and unpublished manuscript contents according to the journal's peer-review confidentiality requirements.
  • Avoid disclosing the identity of complainants unnecessarily.
  • Ensure that good-faith complaints do not create inappropriate disadvantages for authors, reviewers, or other stakeholders.
  • Distinguish verified findings from allegations that remain unresolved.
  • Provide relevant parties with an appropriate opportunity to respond.
  • Prevent the misuse of complaint procedures for harassment, intimidation, retaliation, or knowingly false accusations.

Confidentiality cannot always be guaranteed absolutely, particularly where legal obligations, institutional investigations, or necessary procedural disclosures apply. Information should be shared only to the extent reasonably required for legitimate examination and resolution.

✅ 10. Complaint Outcomes and Corrective Actions

Following examination, JAFTCI determines an appropriate response according to the nature, seriousness, and evidentiary basis of the concern. The outcome must be appropriately documented and communicated to relevant parties within applicable confidentiality limits.

Possible Outcomes

  1. Clarification: Provide a documented explanation of the relevant editorial procedure or scientific matter.
  2. Procedural Improvement: Correct an identified administrative deficiency or improve the applicable editorial workflow.
  3. Additional Assessment: Request independent review or further verification of relevant evidence.
  4. Reconsideration: Reopen a manuscript decision when material grounds for appeal are established.
  5. Corrective Publication: Issue an appropriate correction, expression of concern, or retraction when supported by the evidence.
  6. Referral: Consult relevant institutions, publishers, or responsible authorities where the circumstances justify further examination.
  7. Complaint Closure: Conclude the matter when the concern is resolved, cannot be substantiated, or no further editorial action is justified.

The journal is not required to disclose confidential review reports, protected personal information, or restricted research records in order to communicate the outcome of a complaint.

📂 11. Documentation, Editorial Records, and Policy Review

JAFTCI maintains appropriate documentation of complaints, appeals, supporting evidence, editorial assessments, author responses, independent expert advice, and resulting decisions through its authorized editorial record-management procedures.

Editorial Documentation

  • Original complaint or appeal submissions.
  • Relevant manuscript and publication identification information.
  • Supporting documentation and correspondence.
  • Assessments of conflicts of interest and editorial independence.
  • Author responses and clarification records.
  • Independent scientific or ethical evaluations.
  • Final determinations and reasons supporting editorial decisions.
  • Records of corrective actions and communications with relevant parties.

Records must be managed consistently with applicable confidentiality, privacy, and publication ethics requirements. The journal may review its complaint-handling procedures and implement improvements based on substantiated concerns and relevant developments in scholarly publishing standards.

📨 12. Official Complaints and Appeals Information

Authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, and other stakeholders seeking clarification regarding complaints, appeals, publication ethics, or editorial procedures should communicate through the official JAFTCI editorial channels.

Journal of Advanced Food Technology, Cultivation, and Innovation

Policy: Complaints & Appeals

Eligible Complainants: Authors, Reviewers, Readers, Researchers, Institutions, and Relevant Stakeholders

Editorial Handling: Evidence-Based and Impartial

Conflict-of-Interest Management: Mandatory

Protection of Good-Faith Complainants: Non-Retaliation

Editorial Appeals: Permitted on Substantive Grounds

Complaints and Appeals Fees: IDR 0,- (Free of Charge)

Official Journal Website: https://journal.austrodemika.org/index.php/jaftci

Official Editorial Contact:  Contact the JAFTCI Editorial Office ↗