ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences handles appeals and complaints in accordance with principles of fairness, editorial independence, confidentiality, and publication ethics. This policy has been developed in line with COPE Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
Scope
This policy covers two different types of submissions. An appeal is a request for reconsideration of an editorial decision. A complaint is a concern about the conduct of the journal, its editors, reviewers, editorial board, publisher, or editorial processes. The policy applies to appeals against rejection decisions; alleged technical errors or clear misinterpretation in reviewer reports; allegations of editor or reviewer bias or conflicts of interest; procedural irregularities; unreasonable delay; breaches of confidentiality; inappropriate communication; coercive citation requests; concerns about peer review conduct; and reader complaints regarding published content, corrections, retractions, or ethics processes.
How to submit
All appeals and complaints must be submitted in writing to [Name/Title of Appeals and Complaints Contact] at [email address]. Submissions should include the manuscript title, manuscript ID, date of decision or incident, type of submission, detailed grounds, and any supporting documentation.
Appeals procedure
Appeals against editorial decisions must be submitted within 30 calendar days of the decision notice. An initial administrative check is conducted by the [Managing Editor / Editorial Office]. The substantive review must be undertaken by an editorial decision-maker who was not the sole original decision-maker in the case. Where appropriate, the matter is first reviewed by the relevant Section Editor or Senior Editor; where the appeal concerns a Section Editor decision, it is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. If the appeal alleges bias, conflict of interest, or procedural irregularity involving the Editor-in-Chief, the case is referred directly to an independent [Publication Ethics and Appeals Committee] or to the publisher’s Ombudsperson. Following review, the journal may uphold the original decision, request further assessment, or reopen peer review. As a rule, one substantive appeal is considered per submission, and the journal’s internal final decision is communicated in writing.
Complaints procedure
Complaints may concern editorial conduct, process management, or publication ethics practice. Complaints are logged by the [Appeals and Complaints Contact] and are then referred, depending on their nature, to the relevant Section Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, an independent [Publication Ethics and Appeals Committee], or the publisher’s Ombudsperson. Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher are referred directly to an independent reviewing authority. Where a complaint raises allegations of research or publication misconduct, the journal may take editorial action and, where appropriate, contact the relevant institution, funder, ethics committee, or other competent authority.
External recourse
After the journal’s and publisher’s internal procedures have been exhausted, the complainant may contact the relevant research-integrity office, ethics committee, funder, or another competent external body, depending on the nature of the concern. If the journal or publisher is a COPE member and the matter concerns a possible breach of COPE membership obligations rather than a disagreement with editorial judgement, the complainant may also use the relevant COPE complaints route.
Confidentiality and non-retaliation
The journal will handle all good-faith appeals and complaints as confidentially as reasonably possible. Anonymous or pseudonymous concerns may be considered on their merits, depending on the quality of the information provided. No author, reviewer, editor, or reader will be subject to retaliation for raising a concern in good faith. Submissions that are clearly abusive, threatening, or made in bad faith may be closed with written reasons.
Service targets: Receipt of the submission will normally be acknowledged within 5 working days. A preliminary review will normally be completed within 14 working days. An internal final decision will normally be issued within 60 working days. In complex cases, the process may be extended up to 90 working days; if so, the complainant will be informed in writing of the reason for the extension and the revised timeline.
Last update time: 04.04.2026