Complaints Policy

Complaints Policy

Journal of Advanced Computer Science (JACS)

1. Purpose of the Complaints Policy

The Journal of Advanced Computer Science (JACS) is committed to maintaining transparency, fairness, and accountability in all editorial and publishing activities. This policy explains how the journal receives, evaluates, and resolves complaints related to editorial decisions, peer review, publication ethics, and journal operations.

JACS ensures that all complaints are handled in a professional, confidential, unbiased, and timely manner.

2. Scope of Complaints

Complaints may relate (but are not limited) to the following areas:

2.1 Editorial Process

  • Unfair editorial decisions

  • Delays in handling a manuscript

  • Lack of communication from the editorial office

  • Allegations of bias or discrimination

2.2 Peer Review Process

  • Reviewer misconduct or inappropriate comments

  • Suspected conflict of interest in review

  • Delay or negligence in reviewer response

  • Alleged manipulation or unethical review practices

2.3 Publication Ethics and Integrity

  • Plagiarism allegations

  • Data fabrication or falsification

  • Duplicate submission/publication

  • Citation manipulation

  • Authorship disputes (ghost, gift, or omitted authorship)

  • Ethical concerns about human/animal studies

  • Misuse of AI tools (e.g., deceptive content generation)

2.4 Post-Publication Issues

  • Requests for correction, retraction, or expression of concern

  • Disputes about published content

  • Legal or copyright infringement complaints

2.5 Website and Journal Services

  • Technical problems affecting submission or access

  • Publishing delays

  • Metadata errors

3. How to Submit a Complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing via official journal email.

A complaint should include:

  • Full name and affiliation of the complainant

  • Contact information (email)

  • Manuscript title and ID (if applicable)

  • Description of the complaint with clear evidence

  • Any supporting documents/screenshots

Complaints Email: [Insert Official JACS Email]

4. Principles of Complaint Handling

JACS follows these principles:

  • Fairness: complaints are reviewed objectively.

  • Confidentiality: information is shared only with relevant editorial parties.

  • Transparency: outcomes are communicated clearly.

  • No retaliation: submitting a complaint will not negatively affect current/future submissions.

  • Evidence-based decisions: conclusions are based on documentation and facts.

5. Complaint Review and Resolution Procedure

Step 1: Acknowledgment

The editorial office acknowledges receipt of the complaint within 5 working days.

Step 2: Initial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief (or an assigned senior editor) evaluates whether:

  • the complaint is valid and within the policy scope,

  • additional information is required.

Step 3: Investigation

If required, JACS may:

  • consult editorial records and peer review reports,

  • request clarification from authors/reviewers/editors,

  • involve the publisher or ethics committee.

Step 4: Decision

A final decision is made and communicated to the complainant.
The journal aims to resolve complaints within 15–30 working days, depending on complexity.

Step 5: Actions

Possible corrective actions include:

  • additional editorial review

  • reassignment to new reviewers

  • correction to editorial record

  • formal warning to reviewer/editor

  • rejection/withdrawal of manuscript (if required)

  • post-publication correction/retraction (if necessary)

6. Appeals

If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, they may file an appeal within 10 working days after the decision.

Appeals must provide:

  • clear reasons for disagreement

  • additional evidence (if any)

Appeals will be reviewed by:

  • Editor-in-Chief OR

  • an independent senior editorial member not previously involved.

7. Ethical Complaints and Misconduct

For serious ethical complaints, JACS follows COPE procedures.
In cases of suspected misconduct, the journal may notify:

  • authors’ institutions,

  • relevant funding agencies,

  • or regulatory bodies (when required).

8. Anonymous Complaints

Anonymous complaints may be considered only if they include:

  • strong evidence and documentation, and

  • clear relevance to publication ethics or research integrity.

9. Record Keeping

JACS maintains a secure internal record of all complaints, investigations, and outcomes to ensure accountability and continuous improvement.