Complaints and Appeals

The International Journal of Process Education (IJPE) is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of professionalism and editorial integrity. This policy outlines clear and transparent procedures for authors wishing to appeal editorial decisions and for any stakeholder wishing to raise a general complaint about the journal's conduct, in line with COPE guidelines.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

This procedure applies specifically to authors wishing to appeal the rejection of a manuscript. IJPE only considers appeals when there is objective evidence of an error in the peer review or editorial process.

Acceptable Grounds for Appeal

Appeals must be submitted based on one or more of the following:

  • Procedural Error: Evidence of a failure to adhere to the journal's stated policies (e.g., significant delays without explanation, clear conflict of interest in the review process).
  • Factual Error: Clear evidence that the reviewers or Editor made a significant, demonstrable technical or factual error in their assessment of the data or methods.
  • Misunderstanding: Evidence that the manuscript’s scientific content, novelty, or focus was fundamentally misunderstood by the reviewers or the Editor.
Appeal Procedure
  1. Submission: The corresponding author must submit a formal appeal letter to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) within 14 days of receiving the rejection decision. The letter must contain a point-by-point rebuttal addressing all rejection comments and providing supporting evidence.
  2. Review: The EiC will review the appeal, consulting with a senior member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the original decision. This appeal will take no longer than 4 weeks.
  3. Outcome: The EiC will provide a final decision, which may include upholding the original rejection, inviting the author to submit a revision, or sending the manuscript for re-review by new reviewers. This decision is considered final.
General Complaints About Process or Conduct

This procedure applies to any stakeholder (authors, reviewers, readers) with a complaint regarding the journal's operations, policies, or the conduct of its personnel.

Scope of Complaint

Complaints may relate to:

  • Unprofessional or biased editorial conduct.
  • Excessive or unexplained delays in the peer review process.
  • Ethical concerns regarding published articles (e.g., data manipulation, undisclosed conflicts).
Complaint Procedure (Following COPE)
  1. Submission: The complaint must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief. It must clearly outline the nature of the grievance and provide any supporting documentation.
  2. Acknowledgement and Triage: The complaint will be acknowledged within 7 business days. The designated contact will triage the issue to assess its complexity and validity.
  3. Investigation: The complaint will be investigated impartially and confidentially. If the complaint involves the Editor-in-Chief, the President of the International Academy of Process Educators) will manage the investigation.
  4. Resolution and Response: IJPE will strive to provide a substantive response and resolution to the complainant in a timely manner.
  5. Escalation: If the complainant remains unsatisfied with the journal's final response, they may be advised to escalate the matter to the Publisher. Furthermore, IJPE will inform the complainant of their right to contact the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for guidance if they believe the journal has failed to follow fundamental COPE practices.
Confidentiality

All aspects of the complaint and appeal processes, including the identity of the complainant and the details of internal deliberations, will be handled with strict confidentiality.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

The International Journal of Process Education (IJPE) is committed to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. This policy outlines our procedure for handling allegations of research and publication misconduct, strictly adhering to the principles set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Scope of Misconduct

IJPE considers the following actions to be research misconduct:

  • Fabrication: Making up data or results.
  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing/omitting data/results to misrepresent the research.
  • Plagiarism: Using another's work (ideas, processes, results, or words) without proper credit.
  • Authorship Issues: Ghost authorship (omitting legitimate authors) or gift authorship (including non-contributing individuals).
  • Duplicate Publication: Publishing the same work in multiple places without proper cross-referencing.
  • Conflict of Interest: Failure to disclose financial or personal interests that could influence the research or its publication.
Investigation Procedure
Reporting and Initial Review

Transparency is paramount in Process Education. If AI tools are used at any stage of the research or drafting process, authors must adhere to the following:

  1. Reporting: Allegations must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, providing sufficient detail and evidence. The identity of the complainant will be protected to the maximum extent possible.
  2. Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief will conduct an initial review to determine if the allegation is credible and warrants a full investigation.
Communication and Institutional Involvement
  1. Respondent Notification: If the allegation is deemed credible, the Editor will contact the corresponding author(s) (Respondent) with a neutral description of the concern, requesting a detailed explanation and any supporting evidence.
  2. Institutional Referral (COPE Alignment): For serious allegations or if the author's explanation is unsatisfactory, IJPE will refer the matter to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) or the relevant institutional body of the author(s) for a formal, in-depth investigation. IJPE will cooperate fully with the institution.
Resolution and Confidentiality
  • The entire investigation process will be conducted with strict confidentiality among all parties (editorial staff, publisher, and institution).
  • The accused party will be given a fair right of reply to all allegations before any action is taken.
Corrective Actions and Journal Notices

Based on the outcome of the investigation (whether concluded by the journal or the author's institution), IJPE will take necessary action to correct the scholarly record. All corrective notices will be permanently linked to the original published article.

Investigation Outcome Journal Action (COPE Guidance) Transparency Notice
Serious Allegation (Pending) While an institutional investigation is ongoing, and findings may affect reliability. Expression of Concern (A notice published detailing the nature of the concern).
Minor Error or Honest Mistake Mistakes that do not invalidate the scientific conclusions. Correction/Erratum (A notice detailing the specific change).
Confirmed Misconduct Findings of fabrication, falsification, or severe plagiarism. Retraction (A notice clearly stating the article is invalid due to scientific error or misconduct).
No Misconduct Found Satisfactory explanation provided or institution clears the case. The matter is closed, and the original article remains unchanged.

IJPE reserves the right to impose sanctions for confirmed severe misconduct, which may include banning the author(s) from future submissions.

Conflicts of Interest
  • Authors: Potential conflicts of interest include: financial interests including any direct payments, research funding information, any support received in conducting the research, and any pending patent applications; and any personal or professional relationships with journal staff.
  • Reviewers: personal or professional relationships with the authors; if the manuscript is similar to one the reviewer is preparing for publication; in double anonymous review, if the reviewer suspects the identity of the authors. Additionally, current employees of the same institution as the authors should usually not be invited to review, and if asked, should decline the invitation.
  • Editors/editorial board members: financial interests including any direct payments, research funding information, any support received in conducting research, and any pending patent applications; other editorial board memberships (should not be on journals that have similar aims/scope and compete for content); other commitments involving publishing; any personal or professional relationships with submitting authors. When Editors submit a manuscript to their own journal, their role on the journal should also be declared in the manuscript stating that they have recused themselves from the decision-making process and delegated responsibility in accordance with the Policy on Authorship Frequency and Issue Diversity.