Complaints and Appeals

1. Policy Statement

Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, accountable, and ethical editorial and publication process.

The journal recognizes the right of authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders to raise legitimate concerns about its editorial procedures, publication decisions, and the conduct of individuals involved in the publication process.

All complaints and appeals will be considered objectively, respectfully, confidentially, and without discrimination or retaliation.

This policy is guided by the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly those concerning complaints and appeals, editorial independence, conflicts of interest, and publication integrity.

The journal distinguishes between a complaint concerning editorial conduct or procedure and an appeal requesting reconsideration of a specific editorial decision.

2. Scope of Complaints

The journal may consider complaints relating to:

Editorial procedures: Alleged irregularities, inconsistencies, or failures to follow established editorial policies.
Peer-review processes: Concerns about reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or the fairness of manuscript evaluation.
Editorial decisions: Concerns that a decision was affected by a material procedural error, overlooked evidence, or an undisclosed conflict of interest.
Editorial conduct: Allegations of inappropriate behavior, discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or abuse of editorial authority.
Publication ethics: Concerns involving authorship, plagiarism, research integrity, consent, data reliability, or conflicts of interest.
Post-publication matters: Complaints concerning the handling of corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other matters affecting the published record.
Publication services: Concerns about the communication of applicable fees, editorial correspondence, publication procedures, or the accuracy of information provided by the journal.

A difference of scientific opinion, disagreement with reviewer criticism, or dissatisfaction with a rejection decision does not, by itself, establish procedural misconduct.

However, authors may appeal a decision when they can provide specific reasons or evidence supporting reconsideration.

3. Who May Submit a Complaint?

Complaints may be submitted by:

Authors and co-authors.
Reviewers.
Readers and researchers.
Editorial board members.
Community engagement partners.
Research institutions or affiliated organizations.
Other individuals or organizations with a legitimate concern relating to the journal.

Complaints should be submitted in good faith and should provide sufficient information for the journal to understand and assess the concern.

Anonymous complaints may be considered when they contain specific and verifiable evidence.

The journal will not automatically reject a complaint solely because the complainant requests confidentiality.

4. How to Submit a Complaint

Complaints and appeals should be submitted in writing through the journal's official communication channels.

Journal: Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun

Publisher: Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (LPPM), Universitas Andalas

Email: nagari.lppm@unand.ac.id

Alternative email: nagari.lppm.unand@gmail.com

Journal website: https://buletinnagari.lppm.unand.ac.id/index.php/bln

A complaint or appeal should, where applicable, include:

The complainant's name, affiliation, and contact details.
The manuscript title, submission identification number, article DOI, or URL.
A clear description of the concern.
The editorial decision or action being challenged, if applicable.
Relevant supporting documents or evidence.
The outcome or remedy being requested.

Complainants should avoid including unnecessary personal or sensitive information.

The journal may request additional details when the initial submission is insufficient for a meaningful assessment.

5. Initial Assessment of Complaints

Upon receiving a complaint, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editorial representative will conduct an initial assessment.

This assessment will determine:

Whether the matter falls within the journal's responsibilities.
Whether the complaint identifies a specific concern.
Whether sufficient evidence or information is available.
Whether the complaint involves a potential conflict of interest.
Whether the matter should be handled under another journal policy.

Complaints concerning suspected research or publication misconduct will be handled in accordance with the journal's Allegations of Misconduct policy.

Complaints involving corrections or retractions will also be considered under the Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections policy.

Where necessary, the editorial office may request further clarification before proceeding.

6. Complaint Handling Procedure

Where a complaint warrants further consideration, the journal will follow a fair and proportionate process.

Step 1: Receipt and Registration

The editorial office receives the complaint and records the relevant information for internal handling.

Where contact information is available, the journal should acknowledge receipt and identify the appropriate communication channel for further correspondence.

Step 2: Preliminary Review

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the nature of the complaint and identifies the individuals or records relevant to its assessment.

If the complaint concerns the conduct of a particular editor, that editor must not be solely responsible for evaluating the complaint.

Step 3: Collection of Information

The journal may review:

Editorial correspondence.
Manuscript submission and revision records.
Peer-review reports.
Relevant publication policies.
Statements from individuals involved.
Supporting documents provided by the complainant.

Confidential materials will be handled in accordance with the journal's privacy and peer-review policies.

Step 4: Fair Opportunity to Respond

Individuals whose conduct or decisions are questioned should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the substantive concerns, where appropriate.

The journal will avoid drawing conclusions before considering relevant explanations and available evidence.

Step 5: Independent Consideration

When necessary, the journal may seek an assessment from an uninvolved editor, editorial board member, publisher representative, or other appropriately qualified person.

Any individual with a relevant conflict of interest must be excluded from the substantive assessment.

Step 6: Decision and Communication

The journal will determine an appropriate outcome and communicate the decision to the complainant when contact details are available and disclosure is appropriate.

The response should explain the general basis for the decision without unnecessarily disclosing confidential editorial information or personal data.

7. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they believe there are substantial grounds for an appeal.

An appeal may be appropriate when:

A material factual error affected the editorial decision.
Significant evidence or information was overlooked.
The decision involved a substantial procedural irregularity.
There is credible evidence of an undisclosed conflict of interest.
Reviewer or editorial comments appear to have been materially misinterpreted.
The decision was inconsistent with a relevant published journal policy.

An appeal should clearly identify the decision being challenged and provide a reasoned explanation supported by relevant evidence.

The journal is not obliged to reverse a decision merely because an author disagrees with the reviewers' assessment or wishes to obtain a different outcome.

8. Editorial Appeal Procedure

The journal will assess appeals using the following principles.

8.1 Submission of Appeal

The corresponding author should submit a written appeal through the journal's official contact channels.

The appeal should include the manuscript identification number, the decision being challenged, and the specific grounds for reconsideration.

Where the appeal is submitted on behalf of multiple authors, the corresponding author should ensure that the author group is appropriately informed.

8.2 Assessment of Appeal Grounds

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor will assess whether the appeal raises a substantive issue that warrants reconsideration.

Appeals that do not identify a material error, relevant new evidence, or a procedural concern may be declined with an explanation.

8.3 Independent Review

Where practicable, the appeal should be reviewed by an editor or qualified representative who was not primarily responsible for the original decision.

Additional expert review may be requested if necessary to resolve a substantive technical or scholarly question.

8.4 Appeal Outcome

Possible outcomes include:

Upholding the original editorial decision.
Reconsidering the manuscript based on corrected information.
Requesting an additional independent review.
Reopening a relevant stage of editorial evaluation.
Revising the editorial decision when the available evidence justifies doing so.

An appeal does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

The journal will communicate the outcome and the relevant reasons to the corresponding author.

9. Complaints Against Editors and Reviewers

Complaints concerning editors or reviewers will be evaluated with particular attention to independence, confidentiality, and conflicts of interest.

Examples include:

Inappropriate or unprofessional communication.
Discriminatory treatment.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Breaches of manuscript confidentiality.
Improper use of unpublished information.
Deliberate manipulation of the peer-review process.
Abuse of editorial authority.

A person who is the subject of a complaint must not exercise sole authority over its assessment or resolution.

Where the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the matter should be referred to an appropriately independent editorial representative or the publisher.

The publisher's involvement should not compromise the journal's editorial independence or the impartiality of the assessment.

10. Complaints Concerning Publication Ethics

Complaints involving suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, research ethics violations, or manipulation of the publication process will be assessed under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct policy.

Where appropriate, the journal may contact an author's institution or another responsible organization to request an investigation.

The journal will distinguish between allegations requiring institutional investigation and editorial decisions necessary to protect the scholarly record.

A complaint about a published article may result in a correction, expression of concern, or retraction when justified by the available evidence and applicable publication ethics guidance.

11. Confidentiality and Protection Against Retaliation

The journal will handle complaints and appeals with appropriate confidentiality.

Information will be disclosed only to individuals or organizations whose involvement is reasonably necessary for assessment or resolution, subject to applicable legal and institutional requirements.

The journal will not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith.

Similarly, the journal will protect individuals who are the subject of allegations from premature judgments or unnecessary disclosure of unverified claims.

Confidentiality does not prevent the journal from contacting relevant institutions or publishing an appropriate notice when necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

12. Timeliness and Communication

The journal recognizes the importance of handling complaints and appeals without unnecessary delay.

The editorial office should acknowledge complaints when possible and provide updates when a matter requires extended consideration.

The time required for resolution may vary depending on the complexity of the case, the availability of evidence, the need for independent review, and any involvement of external institutions.

The journal will not promise a fixed investigation or appeal deadline unless that deadline has been formally adopted and can be implemented consistently.

Where a complaint cannot be resolved promptly, the journal should communicate the reason for the delay when appropriate.

13. Possible Outcomes and Corrective Measures

Depending on the findings, the journal may:

Provide clarification or an explanation of the editorial process.
Correct inaccurate information on the journal website.
Request improvements in editorial communication or procedure.
Reconsider a manuscript decision.
Arrange an additional independent review.
Address inappropriate conduct by an editor or reviewer.
Refer an allegation to a relevant institution.
Correct, retract, or issue an expression of concern regarding a published article when warranted.
Revise journal procedures to reduce the risk of similar problems.

Corrective measures should be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the concern.

The journal will distinguish between individual complaints, procedural weaknesses, and substantiated misconduct.

14. Escalation of Unresolved Complaints

If a complainant believes that a complaint has not been handled fairly, they may request further consideration by an appropriately independent editorial representative or the publisher.

Requests for escalation should explain why the previous response is considered inadequate and identify any relevant procedural errors or additional evidence.

When a complaint concerns the journal's governance or the conduct of senior editorial personnel, the publisher may be asked to arrange an impartial assessment.

The journal will consider applicable COPE guidance when evaluating unresolved publication ethics concerns.

Reference to COPE guidance does not mean that COPE acts as a general appeals authority for all editorial decisions or that the journal has a guaranteed external appeals service.

15. Recordkeeping and Continuous Improvement

The journal will maintain appropriate internal records of complaints, appeals, supporting evidence, correspondence, decisions, and corrective actions.

Records will be handled in accordance with applicable confidentiality, privacy, and institutional requirements.

The editorial team should periodically review the types of complaints received to identify opportunities for improving editorial procedures, communication, and policy transparency.

The journal may revise this policy when necessary to reflect changes in publication ethics guidance or journal operations.