The journal is committed to maintaining fairness, transparency, accountability and editorial integrity throughout its editorial and publication processes. Authors, reviewers, readers and other interested parties may raise complaints concerning the journal’s procedures or conduct, while authors may appeal editorial decisions relating to their manuscripts.

Complaints and appeals are considered in accordance with the journal’s policies and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Complaints

A complaint may concern:

• alleged breaches of publication ethics;
• the conduct or administration of the editorial process;
• peer-review procedures or reviewer conduct;
• unreasonable delays in manuscript processing;
• communication with the Editorial Office;
• suspected conflict of interest or inappropriate bias;
• the conduct of an editor, member of the Editorial Board or journal staff; or
• other matters concerning compliance with the journal’s published policies.

A disagreement with an editorial decision concerning the scholarly merits of a manuscript should normally be addressed through the appeals procedure rather than the complaints procedure.

 

Submission of Complaints

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office at info@jgsd.stratum.press and should contain:

• a clear description of the issue;
• the manuscript title and identification number, where applicable;
• relevant dates and correspondence; and
• any evidence or documentation supporting the complaint.

Complainants are encouraged to identify themselves so that the matter can be properly investigated and, where necessary, further information can be requested. Anonymous complaints may nevertheless be considered where they contain sufficient specific and credible information to permit an appropriate assessment.

 

Handling and Investigation of Complaints

Upon receipt, the journal will acknowledge the complaint and conduct an initial assessment to determine its nature and the appropriate procedure for handling it.

The complaint will be considered by an editor or other appropriately qualified person who is not directly implicated in the matter under investigation. Where necessary, information may be requested from authors, reviewers, editors or other parties involved.

If a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the Editor-in-Chief must not participate in its investigation or resolution. The matter will be referred to an independent senior editor, an appropriately qualified member of the Editorial Board or another person authorised to conduct an impartial review.

Where a complaint raises concerns about research or publication misconduct, it will be handled in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.

The journal will communicate the outcome of the investigation to the complainant and, where appropriate, to other parties directly involved.

 

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:

• a significant factual or procedural error affected the decision;
• reviewer or editorial comments contain a material misunderstanding of the manuscript;
• relevant evidence was overlooked;
• a significant conflict of interest may have affected the evaluation; or
• there are other substantial scholarly or procedural grounds for reconsideration.

An appeal should not be based solely on disagreement with the academic judgement of the editors or reviewers.

 

Submission of Appeals

An appeal must be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office and should:

• identify the manuscript concerned;
• specify the editorial decision being appealed;
• clearly explain the grounds for the appeal;
• address the relevant editorial or reviewer comments; and
• provide supporting evidence where appropriate.

Authors should not submit a substantially revised manuscript as an appeal unless specifically requested by the journal.

 

Consideration of Appeals

An appeal will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another suitably qualified senior editor who was not materially involved in the original decision.

If the Editor-in-Chief participated directly in the original decision or has a relevant conflict of interest, the appeal will be assigned to another independent senior editor or appropriately qualified member of the Editorial Board.

Where additional specialist assessment is required, the journal may seek advice from one or more independent reviewers who were not involved in the original evaluation.

The possible outcomes of an appeal include:

• confirmation of the original editorial decision;
• reconsideration of the manuscript;
• further independent peer review;
• an invitation to revise and resubmit the manuscript; or
• reversal of the original decision where justified.

Acceptance of an appeal for consideration does not imply that the original editorial decision will be changed.

The decision reached following completion of the journal’s appeal procedure is final within the journal’s internal editorial process.

 

Corrective Action

Where a complaint or appeal identifies a substantive error or procedural failure, the journal will take appropriate corrective action.

Depending on the circumstances, such action may include reassignment of editorial responsibility, additional independent review, correction of an editorial procedure or communication, or, in relation to published material, appropriate action to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

 

Timeframes for Complaints

The journal aims to handle complaints as efficiently as possible while allowing sufficient time for a fair and thorough assessment.

Acknowledgement of receipt: normally within 3-5 working days

Initial assessment and investigation: normally within 2-4 weeks

Outcome of the complaint: normally within 4-6 weeks of receipt

 

Timeframes for Appeals

The time required to consider an appeal depends on the complexity of the issues raised and whether additional expert review is necessary.

Initial assessment of an appeal: normally within 1–2 weeks

Full reconsideration, where required: normally within 4–8 weeks

Final outcome: normally within 6–10 weeks of receipt

These timeframes are indicative rather than guaranteed. Cases involving complex ethical concerns, additional peer review, external consultation or extensive documentation may require more time. Where a significant delay occurs, the Editorial Office will inform the complainant or appellant and provide an updated indication of the expected timeframe.