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 e