COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas

1. General Policy

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas is committed to maintaining fairness, transparency, accountability, professionalism, and integrity throughout its editorial and scholarly publishing activities.

The journal recognizes the right of authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders to raise legitimate concerns regarding editorial decisions, peer review procedures, publication ethics, and journal management.

This Complaints and Appeals Policy establishes a transparent and impartial framework for receiving, evaluating, investigating, and resolving complaints and appeals related to the journal's editorial and publication processes.

The policy is informed by internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All complaints and appeals will be handled fairly, confidentially, and without discrimination or inappropriate retaliation.

2. Objectives of the Policy

The objectives of this policy are to:

Provide clear and accessible procedures for submitting complaints and appeals.
Ensure fair and impartial consideration of concerns regarding journal operations.
Protect the rights and responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.
Maintain transparency and accountability in editorial decision-making.
Address potential violations of publication ethics and research integrity.
Promote constructive communication between the journal and its stakeholders.
Support continuous improvement in the quality of editorial and publication services.

The journal seeks to resolve complaints and appeals through evidence-based assessment, professional communication, and proportionate corrective measures.

3. Scope of Complaints

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas accepts complaints concerning matters related to its editorial, peer review, publication, and administrative processes.

3.1. Editorial Process Complaints

Complaints may concern:

Unreasonable or unexplained editorial delays.
Failure to follow published editorial procedures.
Inconsistent application of manuscript evaluation criteria.
Lack of appropriate communication regarding manuscript status.
Potential conflicts of interest involving editorial personnel.
Alleged unfairness or procedural irregularities in editorial handling.

A complaint regarding processing time does not automatically establish editorial misconduct.

3.2. Peer Review Complaints

Complaints related to peer review may include:

Alleged reviewer bias or conflicts of interest.
Unprofessional, discriminatory, or inappropriate reviewer comments.
Suspected breaches of manuscript confidentiality.
Potential misuse of unpublished research materials.
Concerns about reviewer qualifications or independence.
Failure to follow the journal's established peer review procedures.

Scientific disagreement with a reviewer does not, by itself, constitute misconduct or procedural unfairness.

3.3. Publication Ethics Complaints

The journal accepts credible reports concerning suspected violations of publication ethics, including:

Plagiarism and inappropriate attribution.
Data fabrication or falsification.
Duplicate or redundant publication.
Authorship misconduct.
Citation manipulation.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Unethical research practices.
Misrepresentation of ethical approval.
Misuse of generative artificial intelligence.
Other concerns affecting scientific integrity.

These complaints will be evaluated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct policies.

3.4. Publication and Production Complaints

Complaints may also relate to:

Incorrect author names or affiliations.
Errors in published article metadata.
Technical errors affecting published content.
Incorrect or incomplete article files.
Problems with article accessibility.
Publication scheduling concerns.
Disputes concerning corrections or retractions.

Where appropriate, verified errors may be addressed through technical corrections or formal publication notices.

3.5. Administrative and Financial Complaints

Administrative complaints may concern:

Incorrect information regarding publication charges.
Payment confirmation problems.
Alleged unauthorized publication fees.
Inconsistent application of the journal's published financial policies.
Communication difficulties concerning administrative procedures.

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas applies an Article Processing Charge (APC) of IDR 500,000 per accepted article.

Financial complaints will be reviewed according to the journal's Publication Fees policy and applicable administrative procedures.

Financial considerations must not influence scientific evaluation or editorial decisions.

4. Who May Submit a Complaint?

Complaints may be submitted by individuals or organizations with legitimate concerns regarding the journal's activities, including:

Authors and corresponding authors.
Reviewers.
Editorial Board members.
Readers and researchers.
Research institutions.
Academic organizations.
Other stakeholders who can provide credible information relevant to the complaint.

Complaints should be submitted in good faith and supported by sufficient information to permit reasonable evaluation.

Anonymous complaints may be considered when they contain specific and credible evidence.

5. Procedures for Submitting a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing through the journal's official communication channels.

Where possible, complainants should provide the following information:

Full name and contact information.
Institutional affiliation, if applicable.
Manuscript identification number or published article title.
A clear description of the complaint.
Relevant dates and circumstances.
Supporting documentation or evidence.
Previous correspondence related to the matter.
The outcome or corrective action requested.

Complaints involving confidential information should not be submitted through public discussion platforms.

The editorial office will handle submitted information in accordance with applicable confidentiality and data protection requirements.

6. Complaint Handling Procedure

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas follows a structured procedure for evaluating complaints.

Stage 1: Receipt and Acknowledgment

The editorial office receives and records the complaint.

The complainant should receive an acknowledgment confirming that the complaint has been received.

The acknowledgment does not imply that the allegation has been substantiated.

Stage 2: Preliminary Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor examines the complaint to determine whether it falls within the journal's responsibilities and whether sufficient information has been provided.

Complaints that are incomplete may require additional clarification.

Matters outside the journal's authority may be referred to an appropriate institution or organization.

Stage 3: Investigation and Clarification

Where further assessment is justified, the editorial team may:

Review editorial records and correspondence.
Examine manuscript evaluation procedures.
Request clarification from relevant editors, reviewers, or authors.
Examine supporting documentation.
Consult independent experts when necessary.
Seek institutional assistance for matters beyond the journal's investigative authority.

Individuals affected by substantive allegations should have a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Stage 4: Evaluation and Resolution

The responsible editor evaluates the available evidence and determines whether corrective action is necessary.

Possible outcomes include:

Providing an explanation or clarification.
Correcting administrative or technical errors.
Reassessing editorial procedures.
Assigning an independent editor.
Reconsidering an editorial decision where justified.
Initiating a research integrity investigation.
Issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction when warranted.
Closing the complaint when insufficient evidence supports further action.

Stage 5: Communication of the Outcome

The editorial office communicates the outcome to the complainant, subject to confidentiality and privacy restrictions.

Where appropriate, the response will explain the basis for the decision and any corrective measures taken.

Stage 6: Documentation and Follow-Up

The journal maintains appropriate records of complaints, investigations, decisions, and corrective actions.

Complaint records may be reviewed internally to identify opportunities for improving editorial policies and operational procedures.

7. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may submit an appeal when they believe an editorial decision was affected by a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, misunderstanding, or conflict of interest.

An appeal is a formal request for reconsideration of an editorial decision.

The journal recognizes that rejection is a normal outcome of scientific evaluation and does not automatically justify an appeal.

Appeals must be supported by specific scientific or procedural arguments.

8. Valid Grounds for Appeal

An editorial appeal may be considered when one or more of the following circumstances apply:

Substantial Scientific Misunderstanding

A reviewer or editor may have substantially misunderstood the research methodology, experimental results, or principal scientific contribution.

Factual Errors in Evaluation

The editorial decision may have relied on demonstrably incorrect information about the manuscript.

Procedural Irregularities

There may have been a significant departure from the journal's published editorial or peer review procedures.

Conflict of Interest

There is credible evidence that an undisclosed conflict of interest may have compromised the fairness of the evaluation.

Inconsistent Application of Editorial Standards

There is evidence that relevant editorial requirements were applied inconsistently in a manner that materially affected the decision.

Disagreement with a reviewer's scientific opinion, without supporting evidence of substantial error or procedural unfairness, is generally insufficient grounds for an appeal.

9. How to Submit an Editorial Appeal

Appeals must be submitted in writing by the corresponding author through the journal's official editorial communication channel.

The appeal should include:

Manuscript identification number.
Manuscript title.
Date of the editorial decision.
A clear statement requesting reconsideration.
Specific grounds for the appeal.
Scientific or procedural evidence supporting the request.
A point-by-point response to relevant editorial or reviewer concerns.
Supporting documents, where appropriate.

The appeal should be written professionally and focus on verifiable scientific or procedural matters.

Personal accusations, abusive language, or unsupported allegations are not acceptable substitutes for evidence-based arguments.

10. Editorial Appeal Review Procedure

Appeals are evaluated through an impartial process.

Step 1: Appeal Registration

The editorial office records the appeal and verifies that the necessary information has been provided.

Step 2: Eligibility Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor determines whether the appeal presents legitimate grounds for reconsideration.

Appeals lacking specific supporting arguments may be declined.

Step 3: Independent Evaluation

Where an appeal warrants further consideration, the journal may assign it to an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

The journal may also seek independent scientific advice or additional reviewer evaluation.

Step 4: Reconsideration of the Decision

The responsible editor evaluates the available evidence and determines whether the original decision should be upheld or reconsidered.

Step 5: Final Appeal Outcome

Possible outcomes include:

Upholding the original editorial decision.
Reopening the manuscript evaluation.
Requesting additional peer review.
Allowing the authors to submit a revised manuscript for further consideration.
Modifying the editorial decision when justified.

A successful appeal does not automatically guarantee manuscript acceptance.

11. Appeals Concerning Rejected Manuscripts

Authors whose manuscripts have been rejected may request reconsideration only when they can demonstrate valid grounds for appeal.

The journal is not obligated to reconsider a manuscript solely because the authors disagree with the reviewers' recommendations.

The editorial team may decline appeals that do not introduce relevant evidence or identify substantial procedural concerns.

Authors should avoid submitting a rejected manuscript as a new submission to bypass an unresolved appeal.

Any permitted resubmission must follow the journal's editorial instructions.

12. Appeals Concerning Research Misconduct Decisions

Authors or other affected parties may appeal editorial actions arising from research integrity investigations when they believe that:

Material evidence was overlooked.
Significant factual errors affected the decision.
Procedural fairness was not maintained.
Relevant conflicts of interest were not appropriately managed.
The editorial response was disproportionate to the established findings.

Such appeals will be considered in accordance with the Research Misconduct and Publication Ethics policies.

Where appropriate, an independent editor or qualified external expert may be involved in reassessment.

An appeal does not automatically suspend corrective action necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

13. Complaints Against Editors or the Editor-in-Chief

Complaints concerning an editor should be evaluated by another qualified editor who is not involved in the matter.

Complaints against the Editor-in-Chief should be referred to an independent designated representative of the publisher or an appropriately constituted ethics committee.

The person who is the subject of a complaint must not have sole authority to determine its outcome.

Where internal independence cannot reasonably be ensured, the journal may seek external advice or institutional assistance.

The evaluation must preserve confidentiality, procedural fairness, and editorial independence.

14. Confidentiality and Protection Against Retaliation

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas is committed to protecting the confidentiality of individuals involved in complaints and appeals, subject to applicable legal and ethical requirements.

Information related to complaints and investigations will be disclosed only to individuals with a legitimate need to participate in their assessment or resolution.

The journal prohibits retaliation within its editorial processes against individuals who raise concerns or submit appeals in good faith.

Authors must not be penalized in future editorial evaluations solely because they previously submitted a legitimate complaint or appeal.

The journal also expects complainants to act responsibly and refrain from deliberately false or malicious allegations.

15. Complaint and Appeal Processing Time

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas aims to handle complaints and appeals efficiently while ensuring careful and impartial evaluation.

The following timeframes are recommended administrative targets:

Stage	Target Duration
Acknowledgment of Complaint or Appeal	Within 5 working days
Preliminary Assessment	Within 10 working days
Initial Editorial Response	Within 15 working days
Appeal Evaluation	Approximately 15–30 working days
Complex Research Integrity Investigation	According to case complexity
Communication of Final Outcome	Following completion of evaluation

These timeframes are indicative targets rather than guaranteed deadlines.

Complex complaints involving research misconduct, institutional investigations, or external expert evaluation may require additional time.

Where feasible, the journal will inform the complainant of significant delays and provide an appropriate explanation.

16. Limitations of the Complaints and Appeals Process

The journal's complaints and appeals procedures are intended to address legitimate editorial, scientific, ethical, and administrative concerns.

They do not guarantee:

Acceptance of a previously rejected manuscript.
Replacement of reviewers solely because their recommendations were unfavorable.
Reversal of an editorial decision without sufficient justification.
Disclosure of confidential reviewer identities.
Access to protected editorial correspondence.
Resolution of disputes outside the journal's authority.
Financial compensation beyond applicable journal policies.

The journal reserves the right to close complaints or appeals that have been adequately evaluated and do not contain new material evidence.

17. Responsibilities of Complainants

Individuals submitting complaints or appeals are expected to:

Provide accurate and relevant information.
Submit concerns in good faith.
Maintain professional and respectful communication.
Provide available supporting evidence.
Respect confidentiality requirements.
Cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification.
Avoid publicly disclosing protected manuscript or reviewer information.

The journal may request further evidence before determining whether additional action is warranted.

18. Editorial Independence and Fairness

All complaints and appeals must be handled independently of financial interests, institutional influence, personal relationships, and external pressure.

The journal's Article Processing Charge of IDR 500,000 per accepted article does not influence the handling of complaints or appeals concerning scientific decisions.

Editors and other individuals involved in the evaluation must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where necessary, responsibility for handling a complaint or appeal must be reassigned to preserve impartiality.

19. Continuous Improvement and Accountability

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas recognizes complaints and appeals as opportunities to improve editorial quality, communication, procedural consistency, and publication governance.

The editorial team may periodically review complaint records to identify recurring problems and implement appropriate procedural improvements.

Such reviews should protect confidential information while supporting institutional learning and accountability.

The journal remains committed to transparent policies, independent editorial decisions, constructive scientific communication, and responsible publication management.

20. Contact for Complaints and Appeals

Complaints and appeals should be submitted through the official communication channels of Jurnal Sistem Cerdas.

Editorial Office – Jurnal Sistem Cerdas

Email: [Official Journal Email Address]

Website: [Official Journal Website]

Publisher: [Name of Publishing Institution]

For appeals concerning manuscripts under editorial consideration, authors should include the relevant OJS manuscript identification number.

For complaints against the Editor-in-Chief, an independent publisher or ethics contact should be provided where available.

21. Commitment to Fair Resolution

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas is committed to ensuring that complaints and appeals are treated seriously, evaluated objectively, and resolved through fair and transparent procedures.

The journal respects the rights of authors, reviewers, readers, and editorial personnel while maintaining the independence and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Through consistent implementation of this policy, Jurnal Sistem Cerdas seeks to strengthen public trust, promote accountability, and maintain a responsible academic publishing environment.

22. References and Ethical Guidelines

This policy is informed by internationally recognized scholarly publishing standards, including:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

https://publicationethics.org/

COPE Core Practices

https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

COPE Guidance and Flowcharts

https://publicationethics.org/guidance

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

All complaints and appeals are handled in accordance with the journal's applicable Publication Ethics, Research Misconduct, Peer Review Process, and Editorial Process policies.