Complaints and Appeals Policy

International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences is committed to ensuring that all editorial processes are conducted fairly, impartially, transparently, and in accordance with internationally recognized standards of publication ethics. The Journal carefully considers complaints and appeals submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, institutions, and other relevant stakeholders.

This policy defines the principles and procedures governing complaints and appeals concerning editorial practices, peer-review processes, publication ethics, published content, editorial decisions, and the professional conduct of editors, reviewers, and journal staff.

1. Complaints

A complaint refers to any concern, allegation, criticism, or objection relating to the Journal’s policies, procedures, staff, editors, reviewers, published content, or publishing practices.

Complaints may include, but are not limited to, the following matters:

• the conduct or management of editorial processes;

• delays or procedural irregularities in peer review;

• inappropriate conduct by editors, reviewers, or journal staff;

• failure to disclose or appropriately manage conflicts of interest;

• breaches of confidentiality;

• discriminatory, unprofessional, or unethical conduct;

• allegations of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or data falsification;

• disputes concerning authorship or contributorship;

• concerns relating to ethics approval, informed consent, or research integrity;

• copyright or intellectual property infringement;

• significant errors or misleading information in published articles;

• requests for correction, retraction, or editorial notice;

• failure to comply with the Journal’s publicly stated policies.

2. Complaints Concerning Published Content

The Journal does not impose a strict time limit on complaints concerning published articles or other published content.

Any matter that may affect the reliability of the scientific record, research ethics, or publication integrity may be reported regardless of the time elapsed since publication. In particular, allegations involving plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, ethical approval violations, authorship misconduct, undisclosed conflicts of interest, copyright infringement, or duplicate publication are not subject to a limitation period.

The fact that a complaint is submitted long after publication does not, in itself, constitute grounds for dismissal. However, complaints are expected to be supported by credible information, relevant documentation, or a reasonable evidential basis.

3. Submission of Complaints

Complaints must be submitted in writing to:

roljournal@rrpubs.com

Where possible, the complaint should include the following information:

• the complainant’s full name and contact details;

• the title, DOI, manuscript number, or other identifying information of the article concerned;

• a clear and detailed description of the complaint;

• supporting documents, references, or evidence;

• information regarding whether the matter has previously been reported;

• the action or resolution sought by the complainant.

Anonymous complaints may be considered where they contain sufficient and verifiable evidence. However, the Journal may be unable to conduct a comprehensive investigation where the complainant’s identity is withheld or the information provided cannot be independently verified.

4. Preliminary Assessment of Complaints

Complaints are initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor. Receipt of the complaint will be acknowledged within a reasonable period.

During the preliminary assessment, the Journal will determine:

• whether the complaint falls within the Journal’s remit;

• whether sufficient information and evidence have been provided;

• whether the matter has already been reviewed;

• whether immediate editorial action is required;

• whether any conflict of interest exists.

Where necessary, the complainant may be asked to provide additional information or supporting documentation.

5. Investigation of Complaints

All complaints are assessed in accordance with the principles of impartiality, confidentiality, procedural fairness, and natural justice.

Depending on the nature of the complaint, the Journal may:

• request written explanations from the relevant parties;

• re-examine manuscript files and editorial records;

• review peer-review reports;

• seek advice from an independent editor or subject specialist;

• contact institutional research integrity offices, ethics committees, or other competent authorities;

• consult relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts.

Unless legal or ethical considerations prevent disclosure, individuals against whom allegations have been made will be given an opportunity to respond.

The complainant is not automatically entitled to access confidential editorial correspondence, peer-review records, or other protected documents.

6. Complaints Concerning Editors

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, or a member of the Editorial Board, the individual concerned must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process.

Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief will be reviewed by an independent member of the Editorial Board, an external editor, or the publisher, provided that no conflict of interest exists.

Where the complaint concerns the publisher or the Journal’s institutional management, the matter should, wherever possible, be assessed by an independent individual or body not involved in the original editorial process.

7. Possible Outcomes of Complaints

Following investigation, the Journal may take one or more of the following actions:

• dismiss the complaint as unsubstantiated;

• provide clarification or a formal response;

• improve or amend editorial procedures;

• request correction by an author or relevant party;

• publish a correction;

• publish an editorial note or expression of concern;

• retract an article;

• discontinue the appointment of a reviewer or editor;

• refer the matter to the author’s or relevant individual’s institution;

• notify an ethics committee, funding body, or competent authority where appropriate.

The Journal will communicate the outcome and the principal reasons for its decision to the complainant, subject to confidentiality and data protection requirements.

8. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial rejection where they believe that the decision was based on a significant scientific, factual, or procedural error.

An appeal does not automatically lead to reconsideration or further peer review. Appeals should generally be based on one or more of the following grounds:

• the editorial decision relied on a significant factual error;

• the reviewer or editor clearly misunderstood a central aspect of the manuscript;

• the evaluation did not comply with the Journal’s stated policies;

• a relevant conflict of interest was not disclosed;

• the review contained discriminatory, personal, or scientifically inappropriate comments;

• a serious procedural irregularity may have materially affected the decision.

Mere disagreement with an editorial decision, differences in scientific interpretation, or a wish to submit new analyses will not normally constitute sufficient grounds for appeal.

9. Time Limit for Appeals

Appeals must be submitted by the corresponding author within 30 calendar days of the date on which the rejection decision was communicated.

Appeals submitted after this period may be considered only in exceptional and adequately justified circumstances.

As a general rule, only one appeal will be considered in relation to the same editorial decision.

10. Content of an Appeal

Appeals must be submitted by the corresponding author to:

roljournal@rrpubs.com

The appeal should include:

• the manuscript title and submission number;

• the date of the rejection decision;

• the specific decision or review comments being challenged;

• clear scientific and procedural grounds for the appeal;

• any supporting documentation or evidence;

• a precise explanation of the alleged error or irregularity.

Appeals must be written in a professional, respectful, and evidence-based manner. Submissions containing threats, insults, defamatory statements, or personal attacks against editors, reviewers, or journal staff may not be considered.

11. Assessment of Appeals

Appeals will, wherever possible, be reviewed by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision, the Editor-in-Chief, or the Editorial Board.

The review of an appeal may take into account:

• the original editorial decision;

• peer-review reports;

• the authors’ previous responses;

• the scientific and procedural arguments raised in the appeal;

• any potential conflict of interest.

Where necessary, the manuscript may be referred to a new independent reviewer. However, the Journal is not obliged to initiate a new peer-review process for every appeal.

Possible outcomes include:

• confirmation of the original decision;

• reconsideration of the editorial decision;

• invitation to submit a revised manuscript;

• initiation of a new peer-review process;

• reversal of the original decision.

The decision reached following the appeal process will normally be considered final.

12. Response Time

The Journal aims to address complaints and appeals as promptly as reasonably possible.

An initial assessment or acknowledgement will normally be provided within 30 days. Matters requiring extensive ethical investigation, institutional correspondence, independent expert review, or additional documentation may take longer.

Where the process is prolonged, the complainant or appellant will be informed at appropriate intervals. Any stated timeframes are indicative rather than absolute and may vary depending on the complexity of the case.

13. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Information obtained during complaint and appeal procedures will be treated confidentially.

Such information will be shared only with editors, board members, independent experts, institutions, or competent authorities where this is necessary for proper investigation.

The identity of the complainant will not be disclosed unless required by law or necessary to ensure procedural fairness. In some circumstances, however, the nature of the allegations may need to be communicated to the party concerned.

14. Repetitive, Abusive, or Malicious Submissions

The Journal will consider all good-faith complaints and appeals supported by relevant evidence. However, it reserves the right to discontinue correspondence concerning:

• repeated complaints that have already been fully investigated and contain no new evidence;

• abusive, threatening, or clearly malicious submissions;

• allegations based solely on personal hostility;

• matters outside the Journal’s jurisdiction;

• submissions lacking sufficient information or verifiable evidence.

This provision will not be used to dismiss legitimate concerns relating to publication ethics or research integrity.

15. Protection Against Retaliation

Individuals who raise concerns in good faith will not be disadvantaged solely because they have submitted a complaint.

However, knowingly providing false information, fabricating evidence, or making malicious allegations with the intention of causing harm may itself constitute misconduct.

16. Policy Framework

This policy is based on the principles of transparency, procedural fairness, editorial independence, accountability, and research integrity.

Complaints and appeals are managed with reference to:

• the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices;

• the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;

• internationally recognized standards of research and publication ethics;

• the transparency and publication ethics expectations applicable to journals evaluated for inclusion in Scopus.

The Journal reserves the right to revise this policy in response to developments in international publishing standards and publication ethics.

Last Updated: 20 July 2026