Complaints and Appeals

Journal of Midwifery (JOM) provides clear, fair, and timely processes for handling (a) complaints about editorial conduct or workflow and (b) appeals against editorial decisions. This policy aligns with COPE Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

1. Introduction

  • We welcome good-faith concerns that help us improve quality and integrity.

  • We treat parties respectfully, maintain confidentiality, and avoid conflicts of interest in handling cases.

  • We aim to acknowledge receipt promptly and resolve matters within reasonable timelines, while allowing due process.

2. Description

2.1 Definitions

  • Complaint: Any concern about the journal’s processes, timelines, communication, editor/reviewer conduct, or policy compliance (excluding research or publication misconduct, which is handled under the Misconduct policy).

  • Appeal: A formal request from an author to reconsider an editorial decision (e.g., reject/revise), based on specific grounds.

2.2 Who may submit

  • Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, funders, or other stakeholders.

2.3 What this policy does not cover

  • Alleged fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, ethics-approval or consent deficiencies, image manipulation, paper mills, or similar integrity concerns are handled under Allegations of Misconduct.

  • Access, licensing, or copyright takedowns are handled under Intellectual Property or Rights queries.

3. Policy

Fairness & independence

  • Cases are handled by an editor who was not involved in the original decision and who has no conflicts of interest. The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) may designate an Appeals Editor for complex cases.

Confidentiality & data protection

  • Identities and materials are shared only with those who need to know or as legally required. Anonymous submissions are considered if sufficiently specific and verifiable.

Grounds for appeals

  • Procedural error or bias; material misunderstanding of the submission; significant new evidence or analyses available at the time of the decision but not previously considered.

  • Disagreement with reviewer opinions alone is insufficient unless linked to a substantive error.

One appeal per decision

  • We ordinarily permit one appeal per manuscript decision. Subsequent appeals are considered only if new, substantive information emerges.

Timeliness

  • Appeals should be filed within 30 days of the decision notice. Complaints should be filed as soon as practicable after the issue arises.

No retaliation

  • We do not tolerate retaliation against complainants, appellants, reviewers, or editors acting in good faith.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

4.1 How to submit (what to include)

  • Send an email to jom@med.unand.ac.id with:
    a) Manuscript ID/DOI (if applicable)
    b) Whether this is a Complaint or an Appeal
    c) A concise description (what happened, when, who is involved)
    d) Grounds for an appeal (if applicable), with specific points responding to the decision/reviews
    e) Supporting files (e.g., timelines, correspondence, marked-up PDF, additional analyses)

4.2 Acknowledgement and triage

  • We aim to acknowledge receipt within 5 working days.

  • Triage determines scope, potential conflicts, urgency (e.g., risk of harm), and whether the matter belongs under Misconduct or other policies.

4.3 Handling complaints (process)

  • Assigned handling editor gathers facts (editorial files, communications, timelines) and may seek statements from involved parties.

  • If the complaint concerns an editor, the case is handled by the EiC or a delegated senior editor uninvolved in the matter.

  • Outcomes may include explanations, apologies, process corrections, timeline adjustments, reassignment to a different editor/reviewer, or other remedies.

4.4 Handling appeals (process)

  • The Appeals Editor (or EiC delegate) reviews the decision letter, reviews’ content, author rebuttal, and the manuscript.

  • Possible steps: obtain an independent second opinion; seek additional external review; or request a rebuttal revision addressing specific points.

  • The appeal may result in:
    a) Uphold the original decision (with justification),
    b) Invite revision (minor/major), or
    c) Reverse the decision and proceed to acceptance or further review.

4.5 Conflicts of interest and recusal

  • Editors or reviewers with personal, financial, or academic conflicts are recused from handling or advising on the case.

4.6 Communication and timelines

  • We aim to provide a substantive update within 20 working days after acknowledgement. Complex cases may require more time; interim updates will be provided.

4.7 Interaction with Misconduct and other policies

  • If a complaint or appeal raises potential misconduct, the matter is referred to the Allegations of Misconduct process; editorial handling may pause pending fact-finding.

  • If licensing or rights issues arise, we follow the Intellectual Property policy.

4.8 External liaison

  • Where research integrity falls under institutional oversight, we may contact the relevant institution or funder and consider their findings in our outcome.

4.9 Record-keeping

  • We keep confidential case files (correspondence, timelines, decisions) in the editorial system to support transparency and future process improvements.

4.10 Frivolous, abusive, or duplicate submissions

  • We may decline to consider submissions that are defamatory, abusive, repetitive without new evidence, or clearly outside scope.

Related and supporting policies

Contact

Questions about this policy or a case in progress: jom@med.unand.ac.id

Back to Publication Ethics main page: https://jom.fk.unand.ac.id/index.php/jom/ethics