Appeal Policy

The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences and Wellbeing (JISSAW) is committed to a fair, transparent, and accountable editorial process. We recognize that disputes may arise, and we strictly follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to resolve them constructively.

1. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors have the right to appeal a rejection if they believe the decision was based on a procedural error or a significant misunderstanding of the scientific content.

  • Valid Grounds for Appeal:
    • Procedural Error: Evidence of reviewer bias or a conflict of interest that was not disclosed (e.g., a reviewer from a competing research group).
    • Factual Error: The reviewer made a demonstrably wrong technical assessment (e.g., misinterpreting the statistical model used in a demographic analysis).
    • Clarification: The author can provide new data or explanations that directly address the reviewer’s core concern.
  • Invalid Grounds: Disagreement with the journal's scope or the novelty assessment of the reviewers without specific evidence.

The Appeal Process:

  1. Submission: Appeals must be submitted via email to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision letter.
  2. Requirements: The email must include the Manuscript ID and a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal letter citing specific evidence to support the claim.
  3. Review: The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal, potentially consulting a new independent reviewer or a member of the Editorial Board.
  4. Decision: A final decision (Accept Appeal or Reject Appeal) will be communicated within 4–6 weeks. This decision is final.

2. Complaints Regarding Process or Ethics

We welcome feedback and complaints regarding the journal’s management, including allegations of research misconduct or ethical breaches.

  • Scope: This covers long delays in peer review, rude or unprofessional conduct by editors/reviewers, or allegations of plagiarism/unethical data use in published papers.
  • Investigation: All complaints are investigated by the Managing Editor (or the Editorial Board if the complaint involves the Editor) following the relevant COPE Flowcharts.
  • Resolution: The complainant will receive a written response detailing the investigation's outcome and any corrective actions taken (e.g., corrections to the record or changes in internal policy).

3. Post-Publication Concerns

If a reader identifies a significant error in a published article (e.g., fabricated public health data or plagiarism in a policy review):

  1. Email the Editorial Office with evidence (e.g., side-by-side text comparisons).
  2. The journal will investigate and may issue a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction in accordance with our Retraction Policy.