Complaints and Appeals Policy

Penelitian Gizi dan Makanan (The Journal of Nutrition and Food Research) is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, transparently, confidentially, and in a timely manner. The journal recognizes the importance of providing authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other stakeholders with an appropriate mechanism to raise concerns about editorial decisions, publishing procedures, professional conduct, and the application of publication ethics.

This policy is informed by relevant principles and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and should be read together with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy, Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy, Post-Publication Discussion Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, and Peer Review Process.

1. Scope and Definitions

This policy applies to complaints and appeals concerning the journal's editorial and publishing activities, including matters involving authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, editorial staff, and the publisher.

A complaint is an expression of concern regarding the conduct, procedures, decisions, or administrative practices of the journal or individuals involved in its publishing activities.

An appeal is a formal request to reconsider an editorial decision concerning a submitted manuscript, based on specific grounds and supporting evidence.

Complaints and appeals will be assessed on their merits, regardless of the complainant's institutional affiliation, professional seniority, nationality, or relationship with the journal.

2. Types of Complaints

The journal accepts complaints concerning, but not limited to:

  • Delays in editorial assessment, peer review, or publication processing.

  • Failure to follow the journal's published editorial procedures or policies.

  • Concerns about the professional conduct, fairness, impartiality, or competence of editors, reviewers, or editorial staff.

  • Undisclosed competing interests or potential bias affecting editorial handling.

  • Breaches of confidentiality or inappropriate use of confidential manuscript information.

  • Inappropriate reviewer comments or unprofessional communication.

  • Inconsistencies in the implementation of publication ethics policies.

  • Administrative irregularities concerning manuscript handling or publication procedures.

  • Concerns about the journal's handling of previously submitted complaints or appeals.

Complaints involving suspected research or publication misconduct, scientific concerns about published articles, or requests for formal correction or retraction will be referred to the relevant journal policy where appropriate.

3. Grounds for Appealing Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the decision was affected by a material error, procedural irregularity, or other circumstances that warrant reconsideration.

Valid grounds for an appeal may include:

  • A significant factual error or misunderstanding that materially affected the editorial decision.

  • Failure to follow the journal's stated editorial or peer-review procedures.

  • Evidence of bias, an undisclosed competing interest, or inappropriate conduct that may have compromised the fairness of the assessment.

  • A substantial inconsistency between the available reviewer assessments and the editorial decision that warrants further examination.

  • New material evidence that could not reasonably have been provided earlier and that may affect the basis of the decision.

Disagreement with an editor's or reviewer's scientific judgment, by itself, is generally insufficient grounds for an appeal. An appeal must provide specific reasons and supporting evidence rather than merely restating the manuscript's merits or expressing dissatisfaction with rejection.

Editorial decisions based on the manuscript's lack of relevance to the journal's aims and scope, insufficient scientific quality, or failure to meet essential publication requirements will not normally be reconsidered unless the author provides a substantive reason demonstrating that the decision may have been affected by an error or procedural irregularity.

4. Submission of Complaints and Appeals

Complaints and appeals must be submitted in writing to the journal's Editorial Office through the official contact details provided on the journal's website.

The subject line should clearly identify the nature of the submission:

  • Complaint – [Manuscript ID or Article Title]

  • Appeal – [Manuscript ID or Article Title]

The submission should include, where applicable:

  1. The complainant's name, institutional affiliation, and contact information.

  2. The manuscript identification number, article title, DOI, or other relevant identifying information.

  3. A clear and factual description of the concern.

  4. The specific policy, procedure, decision, or conduct being questioned.

  5. Supporting evidence, relevant correspondence, or documentation.

  6. For an appeal, a clear explanation of the grounds for reconsideration and a response to the relevant editorial or reviewer comments.

Anonymous complaints may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific information or evidence to permit a meaningful assessment. However, anonymity may limit the journal's ability to seek clarification or communicate the outcome.

Complaints and appeals should be submitted promptly after the relevant event or decision becomes known. Authors are normally expected to submit an appeal within 30 calendar days of receiving the editorial decision. Late appeals may be considered where there is a reasonable justification or significant new evidence.

5. Handling of Complaints

The journal will handle complaints through a fair and proportionate process.

5.1. Receipt and Preliminary Assessment

Upon receiving a complaint, the Editorial Office will record the matter and acknowledge receipt as promptly as practicable, normally within five working days.

An initial assessment will determine whether the complaint falls within the scope of this policy, whether additional information is required, and which individual or body is appropriate to handle the matter.

Complaints that fall under another journal policy may be referred to the relevant procedure, with appropriate communication to the complainant where possible.

5.2. Investigation and Assessment

The complaint will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, an appropriately authorized editor, or another designated representative, depending on the nature of the concern.

The journal may:

  • Review manuscript records, editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, and relevant documentation.

  • Request clarification or supporting evidence from the complainant.

  • Invite the individuals concerned to provide a response.

  • Consult an independent editor, qualified expert, or appropriate institutional representative.

  • Refer suspected research or publication misconduct to the procedures described in the relevant policy.

All parties will be treated fairly, and conclusions will be based on available evidence rather than unsupported assumptions.

5.3. Conflicts of Interest

Anyone who is the subject of a complaint, directly involved in the disputed conduct, or otherwise has a relevant competing interest must not independently investigate or determine the outcome of that complaint.

Where the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, a designated independent editor or an appropriately authorized representative of PERSAGI, as publisher, will arrange for the matter to be assessed independently.

Where the complaint concerns the publisher or the publisher's representative, an appropriately independent person or body should be designated to handle the matter.

5.4. Outcomes of Complaints

Depending on the findings, the journal may:

  • Conclude that no further action is warranted and explain the decision where appropriate.

  • Provide clarification or an explanation of the relevant procedures.

  • Correct an administrative or procedural irregularity.

  • Review or improve editorial procedures.

  • Arrange an independent assessment of the matter.

  • Replace a conflicted editor or reviewer where appropriate.

  • Initiate a formal research-integrity investigation under the relevant policy.

  • Refer the matter to the publisher, an appropriate institution, or another authorized body where warranted.

The complainant will be informed of the outcome to the extent permitted by confidentiality, privacy, and other applicable obligations.

6. Handling of Appeals

6.1. Appeal Review

An appeal will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor who was not responsible for the original decision, wherever practicable.

The reviewer of the appeal will examine the grounds presented by the author, the original editorial decision, relevant reviewer reports, the manuscript record, and any supporting evidence.

Where necessary, the journal may seek an additional independent assessment from another editor or an external subject expert.

An appeal does not automatically result in the manuscript being reconsidered for publication or sent for another round of peer review.

6.2. Possible Outcomes

Following assessment, the journal may:

  • Uphold the original editorial decision.

  • Request additional information or clarification from the author.

  • Arrange an additional independent review.

  • Reopen the editorial assessment when a material error or procedural irregularity is identified.

  • Revise the original decision where the evidence justifies such action.

The decision and its rationale will be communicated to the corresponding author in writing.

6.3. Finality of Appeal Decisions

The outcome of an appeal is normally final for the manuscript concerned. A further appeal will only be considered in exceptional circumstances, such as the emergence of significant new evidence or a substantive concern about the fairness of the appeal process itself.

An appeal does not guarantee acceptance or publication. The manuscript remains subject to the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements.

7. Complaints Concerning Published Articles

Concerns about the scientific content, interpretation, accuracy, or conclusions of a published article should ordinarily be submitted through the journal's Post-Publication Discussion Policy.

The journal encourages evidence-based scholarly discussion and will assess substantive concerns fairly, giving the original authors an appropriate opportunity to respond where warranted.

If a concern indicates a possible error affecting the reliability of the published record, the journal may consider a correction, an Expression of Concern, a retraction, or another appropriate editorial action in accordance with its applicable policies.

Concerns involving suspected plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, authorship misconduct, or other research-integrity violations will be assessed under the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

A complaint concerning a published article does not automatically establish that misconduct has occurred or that the article must be retracted.

8. Confidentiality and Protection Against Retaliation

Complaints and appeals will be handled confidentially. Information will be shared only with individuals who need access to assess, investigate, or resolve the matter.

The journal will make reasonable efforts to protect the identity of complainants when disclosure is not necessary for a fair assessment. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when the circumstances of a complaint make the complainant identifiable.

The journal will not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith or provide relevant evidence during an investigation.

All parties are expected to communicate professionally and avoid harassment, threats, unsupported public accusations, or the inappropriate disclosure of confidential information.

The journal may limit further correspondence where a matter has been fully assessed and repeated communications provide no new information. Such decisions must not prevent the consideration of legitimate new evidence or material concerns.

9. Timeframes and Record-Keeping

The journal aims to acknowledge complaints and appeals promptly and to complete preliminary assessments without unnecessary delay.

The time required to resolve a matter will depend on its complexity, the availability of relevant evidence, the need to consult independent experts, and whether external institutions or other parties must be involved.

Where resolution is likely to take substantially longer than expected, the journal will provide an appropriate update when practicable.

The journal will maintain appropriate records of complaints, appeals, supporting documentation, decisions, and actions taken, subject to applicable confidentiality and data-protection requirements. These records may be used to monitor recurring concerns and improve editorial procedures.

10. Escalation of Unresolved Concerns

If a complainant remains dissatisfied after the journal's procedures have been completed, the matter may be referred to the publisher or an appropriately independent body, depending on the nature of the concern.

Concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief or editorial office should be directed to the designated independent contact or authorized PERSAGI representative identified on the journal's website.

Where appropriate, unresolved concerns may also be brought to the attention of a relevant institution or other competent authority. Any external escalation must follow the applicable procedures and requirements of the relevant body.

The journal will consider additional information or evidence submitted through an appropriate escalation process when it materially affects the assessment of the case.

11. Related Policies and Review

This policy should be read together with the journal's:

  • Publication Ethics Policy.

  • Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

  • Post-Publication Discussion Policy.

  • Conflict of Interest Policy.

  • Peer Review Process.

  • Article Withdrawal Policy.

  • Copyright and Licensing Policy.

The journal will periodically review this policy to ensure that complaints and appeals are handled consistently, fairly, transparently, and in accordance with relevant COPE guidance and recognized scholarly publishing practices.