Complaints & Appeals Policy

The Celebes Nursing Journal (CNJ) is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, impartially, confidentially, and without unnecessary delay. This policy provides a transparent mechanism for raising concerns about editorial decisions, peer review, publication ethics, journal procedures, editorial conduct, and other matters within CNJ’s responsibility.
Complaints and appeals are assessed according to their substance and supporting information. Raising a complaint or appeal does not, by itself, affect the consideration of a current or future manuscript.
This policy is informed by the COPE guidance on Complaints and Appeals.

1. Definitions and Scope
For the purposes of this policy:

• A complaint concerns the conduct, procedure, service, ethics, timeliness, communication, or administration of the journal.
• An appeal is a request by an author for reconsideration of a specific editorial decision concerning their manuscript.

Complaints may concern:

• Editorial conduct, fairness, or possible bias
• Peer-review conduct or inappropriate reviewer comments
• Unreasonable or unexplained delays
• Breaches of confidentiality
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Authorship, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity, or other publication-ethics concerns
• Errors or concerns involving published content
• Failure to follow a stated journal policy or procedure
• Conduct of an editor, reviewer, Editorial Board member, journal staff member, or publisher representative
• Other matters within the journal’s editorial or publishing responsibility

Matters involving corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions will also be considered under CNJ’s Retraction & Correction Policy. Suspected research or publication misconduct will be considered under the Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement (PEMS) and other applicable CNJ policies.

2. Submitting a Complaint
Complaints should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the official contact information provided on CNJ’s Contact page.
A complaint should include, where applicable:

• The complainant’s name, affiliation, and contact information
• The manuscript identification number or complete article citation
• A clear description of the concern
• The relevant journal policy, procedure, correspondence, or editorial action
• Supporting evidence or documentation
• Any steps already taken to resolve the matter
• The outcome or remedy being requested

CNJ may consider anonymous complaints when they contain sufficiently specific, credible, and verifiable information. However, anonymity may limit the journal’s ability to investigate, request clarification, or communicate an outcome.
Complaints should be submitted in good faith and should avoid defamatory, abusive, threatening, discriminatory, or knowingly false statements.

3. Initial Assessment of Complaints
CNJ will ordinarily acknowledge receipt of a complaint within seven business days. An acknowledgment does not indicate that the complaint has been upheld.
The Editor-in-Chief or designated independent editor will conduct an initial assessment to determine:

• Whether the matter falls within CNJ’s responsibility
• Whether sufficient information has been provided
• Whether immediate action is necessary to protect participants, confidentiality, public safety, or the scholarly record
• Whether another CNJ policy or procedure should apply
• Whether the matter should be referred to an institution, ethics committee, publisher, regulator, funder, or other competent authority
• Whether a conflict of interest requires assignment to another editor or independent person

CNJ may request further information before deciding whether a formal review is warranted. Matters outside the journal’s authority may be referred to or directed toward the appropriate organization.

4. Complaint Review and Outcome
When further review is warranted, CNJ may:

• Review relevant manuscript files, editorial records, reviewer reports, correspondence, policies, data, or other documentation
• Request responses from the author, reviewer, editor, staff member, or other relevant person
• Consult an independent editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer, ethics adviser, statistical adviser, or subject expert
• Contact an institution, ethics committee, research-integrity office, publisher, funder, regulator, or other competent authority
• Apply an interim measure when necessary to protect confidentiality, participant safety, or the integrity of the editorial or scholarly record

Possible outcomes may include:

• A finding that the complaint is not substantiated
• Clarification or explanation of the applicable policy or decision
• An apology or correction of an administrative or communication error
• Reconsideration by another editor
• Additional or replacement peer review
• Correction of journal records or published content
• Action under the Peer Review Policy, publication-ethics procedures, or another applicable CNJ policy
• Referral to an institution or other competent authority
• Another proportionate corrective or preventive action

CNJ will communicate the outcome to the complainant where appropriate, subject to confidentiality, privacy, legal restrictions, and the rights of other parties. The journal may be unable to disclose confidential personnel, reviewer, institutional, or research-integrity information.
The time required to resolve a complaint depends on its complexity, the availability of evidence, responses from relevant parties, and whether an external investigation is required. CNJ will provide an update when a substantive delay occurs but does not guarantee resolution within a fixed period.

5. Appeals of Editorial Decisions
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a material scientific, methodological, ethical, factual, or procedural issue was incorrectly assessed or was not adequately considered.
An appeal may concern:

• A decision to decline a manuscript before external peer review
• A decision to reject a manuscript after peer review
• An editorial decision based on an alleged ethical, procedural, or research-integrity concern
• A material error in the interpretation of the manuscript, reviewer reports, or applicable journal policy

An appeal is not intended merely to express disagreement with an editorial decision or to request another opportunity to revise a manuscript. Differences in scholarly judgment, editorial priority, novelty assessment, or relevance to the journal’s scope do not by themselves establish grounds for appeal.

6. Requirements for an Appeal
An appeal must be submitted in writing by the corresponding author and should:

• Identify the manuscript and editorial decision being appealed
• Explain clearly the specific grounds for reconsideration
• Address the relevant editorial and reviewer comments point by point
• Identify any material factual, scientific, methodological, ethical, or procedural error
• Provide supporting evidence or references where relevant
• Disclose any information relevant to the appeal that was not previously available

An appeal should be concise, professional, and focused on matters that could reasonably have affected the decision. A substantially rewritten manuscript, a new study, or extensive new analysis will not ordinarily be considered through the appeal process and may require a new submission.
CNJ ordinarily considers one appeal for each editorial decision. Repeated submissions that do not provide material new information may be closed without further review.

7. Appeal Review Process
An appeal will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a qualified designated editor. Whenever reasonably possible, the appeal should be reviewed by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision.
The reviewing editor may:

• Examine the manuscript, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and appeal submission
• Consult the original handling editor
• Seek an independent assessment from another editor, reviewer, or specialist
• Request clarification from the authors
• Arrange additional peer review when necessary

Possible appeal outcomes include:

• Upholding the original decision
• Reopening editorial consideration
• Requesting additional or replacement peer review
• Requesting revision or clarification
• Reversing or modifying the original decision

Successful appeal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance. If editorial consideration is reopened, the manuscript remains subject to CNJ’s ordinary scientific, ethical, and peer-review requirements.
The decision reached after completion of the appeal process is final within CNJ. This does not prevent a person from raising a separate complaint about a material procedural or ethical concern that was not adequately addressed through the appeal.

8. Independence and Conflicts of Interest
A complaint or appeal must not be handled or decided by a person with an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
When a matter concerns the conduct or decision of the Editor-in-Chief, it will be assigned to another qualified and independent editor, senior Editorial Board member, or appropriate publisher representative who was not involved in the matter.
When a matter concerns an Associate Editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer, journal staff member, or publisher representative, it will be handled by a person with sufficient independence and authority to assess the concern fairly.
No person whose conduct is the subject of a complaint will make the final decision on that complaint.

9. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Protection from Retaliation
Complaints and appeals will be handled as confidentially as reasonably possible. Information may be shared with authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, publishers, advisers, or other relevant parties when necessary for fair assessment or appropriate action.
CNJ will:

• Treat allegations as unproven until appropriately assessed
• Provide relevant parties an appropriate opportunity to respond
• Protect the identity of complainants acting in good faith where reasonably possible
• Not tolerate retaliation against a person who raises a concern in good faith
• Maintain appropriate records of the assessment and outcome
• Use objective, respectful, and non-defamatory language

Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed when disclosure is required by law, necessary to protect participants or public safety, needed for a fair investigation, or required when referring the matter to a competent authority.

10. Abusive, Repetitive, or Bad-Faith Communications
CNJ will consider substantive concerns even when they are critical of the journal or its decisions. However, the journal may limit or discontinue correspondence that is repetitive, abusive, threatening, discriminatory, knowingly false, unrelated to the matter, or no longer raises material new information.
Any decision to limit correspondence will not prevent CNJ from assessing credible evidence of research, publication, or editorial misconduct contained in the communication.

11. Policy Review
This policy is reviewed periodically to maintain consistency with CNJ’s editorial procedures, Peer Review Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement (PEMS), and relevant COPE guidance.