Complaints and Appeals

Accesso Journal has an explicitly outlined and transparent process for addressing complaints directed toward the journal, its staff, editorial board, or publisher. Every complaint regardless of its nature or source is treated with seriousness, urgency, and professionalism.

The journal is committed to ensuring that all concerns are handled through a fair, impartial, and respectful process. This involves carefully reviewing the details of each complaint, seeking clarification from all relevant parties, and applying established ethical and procedural guidelines to reach a resolution. By maintaining openness, neutrality, and integrity in complaint handling.

This policy clearly distinguishes between "complaints" and "appeals":

Complaints refer to expressions of dissatisfaction by any individual or group regarding any aspect of JOSI's policies, procedures, editorial conduct, staff or editorial board actions, or published content (when not concerning the scientific validity of a rejected manuscript, which typically constitutes an appeal). Complaints may include, but are not limited to:

  • Unreasonable delays in manuscript handling or publication

  • Concerns about editor or Accesso Journal staff conduct

  • Issues with journal systems or processes

  • Non-compliance with stated journal policies (excluding editorial decisions)

  • Allegations regarding journal integrity or behavior

Appeals constitute formal requests from authors for Accesso to reconsider editorial decisions on their submitted manuscripts, typically rejection decisions.

This policy establishes clear pathways for addressing such matters. Concerns regarding research or publication misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) are handled under Accesso's "Policy on Suspected Violations," though complaints may arise regarding how such allegations are handled.

1. Policy Principles

Fair Process Commitment: Accesso is committed to fair, transparent, and consistent processes for investigating and resolving all complaints and appeals.

Confidentiality: All complaints and appeals will be handled with appropriate confidentiality. Information will only be shared with those directly involved in investigation and resolution. Complainant/appellant identities will be protected whenever reasonably possible.

Timeliness: Accesso will acknowledge receipt of all complaints and appeals promptly (typically within 5-7 working days). We aim to investigate and resolve matters within reasonable timeframes, keeping complainants/appellants informed of significant delays.

Constructive Engagement: Our approach to complaints and appeals is constructive, viewing them as opportunities to address issues and potentially improve journal policies, procedures, and services.

Non-Retaliation: Accesso guarantees that no individual will face adverse action or retaliation for submitting good-faith complaints or appeals.

Appeal Grounds: Editorial decision appeals will only be considered when authors provide clear evidence of:

  1. Significant factual misunderstanding or error by reviewers/editors that directly affected the decision

  2. Substantive new evidence/data unavailable during initial review that directly addresses key concerns and might alter the manuscript's evaluation

  3. Demonstrably flawed or biased peer review process
    Appeals based solely on differing scientific opinions from reviewers/editors will generally not succeed.

Frivolous Submissions: Accesso reserves the right to dismiss complaints or appeals deemed unfounded, vexatious, repetitive, or outside this policy's scope.

2.  Implementation Procedures

A. Complaint Handling (Regarding journal policies, procedures, or editorial/staff conduct)

Submission:

  • Complaints must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief (contact information available on journal website)

  • Should clearly articulate the issue, including specific details (dates, involved parties if relevant, manuscript ID when applicable) and supporting documentation

Acknowledgment:

  • The Editor-in-Chief or designated representative will acknowledge receipt

Investigation:

  • The Editor-in-Chief will conduct thorough investigation, which may include:

    • Reviewing correspondence

    • Consulting with editorial board members, staff, or other relevant parties

    • Requesting additional information from complainant

  • Investigations will be conducted impartially

Resolution:

  • Upon investigation completion, the Editor-in-Chief will provide written response summarizing findings and outlining actions taken/proposed

  • Possible outcomes include explanations, apologies, or policy/procedure revisions

  • Unfounded complaints will be communicated as such

Escalation:

  • Dissatisfied complainants may request further review by the Publisher (Rancak Publik)

  • For complex or unresolved ethics complaints, Accesso may consult COPE guidelines

B. Appeal Handling (Regarding editorial decisions)

Submission:

  • Must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief by the concerned author(s)

  • Must be filed within 30 days of editorial decision

  • Must clearly state appeal reasons and provide detailed rebuttals to editor/reviewer comments

  • Revised manuscripts should not be submitted unless expressly invited in the original decision

Appeal Assessment:

  • The Editor-in-Chief will first determine if the appeal meets valid grounds as outlined in Section 3

  • Appeals lacking valid grounds (e.g., mere disagreement with scientific judgment) may be rejected at this stage

Appeal Investigation:

  • For valid appeals, the Editor-in-Chief will reconsider the manuscript through:

    • Re-evaluating original manuscript, reviewer reports, and author rebuttal

    • Consulting original handling editors/reviewers (when appropriate, maintaining anonymity)

    • Seeking input from other editorial board members or independent external experts

Appeal Decision:

  • The Editor-in-Chief's final decision is binding

  • Corresponding authors will receive written notification with clear explanation

  • Accesso Journal typically considers only one appeal per manuscript

Possible Outcomes:

  1. Original decision upheld

  2. Manuscript invited for new peer review round (potentially with new reviewers)

  3. Original decision overturned (rare, requiring evidence of significant review process flaws)

  4. Manuscript remains rejected but with different/better-explained reasons

C. Record-Keeping

Accesso will maintain confidential records of all complaints and appeals, including related correspondence, investigation details, and outcomes. These records will be used to monitor and improve journal processes.


This policy is subject to periodic review and may be updated to reflect evolving best practices and COPE Guideline.