Complaints and Appeals

1. Introduction

Physical Education and Sports: Studies and Research (PESSR) is dedicated to providing a high-quality, transparent, and fair publication process for authors, reviewers, and readers. We understand that concerns or disagreements may occasionally arise. This policy outlines procedures for submitting and handling complaints related to the journal's processes, policies, or staff conduct, as well as for authors who wish to appeal editorial decisions on their manuscripts. PESSR is committed to addressing all complaints and appeals constructively, impartially, and in a timely manner, in accordance with the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Description

This policy distinguishes between "complaints" and "appeals":

a. Complaint: An expression of dissatisfaction by any individual or group regarding any aspect of PESSR's policies, procedures, editorial conduct, actions of its staff or editorial board, or its published content (where the concern is not about the scientific validity of a rejected manuscript, which would typically be an appeal). This may include, but is not limited to, issues such as:

1) Undue delays in manuscript handling or publication.
2) The conduct of PESSR editors or staff.
3) Problems with journal systems or processes.
4) Concerns about adherence to stated journal policies (excluding appeals against editorial decisions).
5) Allegations concerning the integrity or conduct of the journal itself.

b. Appeal: A formal request from an author (or authors) for PESSR to reconsider an editorial decision made on their submitted manuscript, typically a decision of rejection.

This policy aims to provide a clear pathway for raising such issues. Concerns related to research or publication misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) are handled under PESSR's "Policy on Allegations of Misconduct," although a complaint might arise about how the allegation was handled.

3. Policy

a. Commitment to Fair Process: PESSR commits to a fair, transparent, and consistent process for investigating and resolving all complaints and appeals.

b. Confidentiality: All complaints and appeals will be handled with due confidentiality. Information will be shared only with those directly involved in the investigation and resolution process. The identities of complainants or appellants will be protected where possible and appropriate.

c. Timeliness: PESSR will acknowledge receipt of all complaints and appeals promptly (typically within 5-7 working days). We aim to investigate and resolve issues within a reasonable timeframe, keeping the complainant or appellant informed of significant delays.

d. Constructive Engagement: Our approach to complaints and appeals is constructive. We view them as opportunities to address concerns and, where appropriate, to improve our journal's policies, procedures, and overall service to the scholarly community.

e. No Retaliation: PESSR guarantees that no individual will be subject to adverse action or retaliation for lodging a complaint or appeal in good faith.

f. Grounds for Appeal: Appeals against editorial decisions will be considered primarily if an author can provide clear evidence of:

1) A significant misunderstanding or factual error on the part of the reviewers or editors that directly influenced the decision.
2) New, substantive evidence or data that was not available at the time of the original review and which directly addresses the key concerns raised, potentially altering the manuscript's assessment.
3) A demonstrably flawed or biased peer review process. Appeals based solely on a differing scientific opinion from that of the reviewers or editors will generally not be successful.

g. Frivolous or Vexatious Submissions: PESSR reserves the right to dismiss complaints or appeals that are deemed to be without merit, vexatious, repetitive, or outside the scope of this policy.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

a. Procedure for Handling Complaints (Concerning journal policies, procedures, editorial conduct, or staff)

  1. Submission of a Complaint:

    a) Complaints should be made in writing and directed to the Editor-in-Chief of PESSR. Contact information is available on the journal website.
    b) The complaint should clearly articulate the issue(s), including specific details such as dates, names of individuals involved (if relevant), manuscript ID (if applicable), and any supporting documentation or evidence.

  2. Acknowledgement:

    The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editorial office representative will acknowledge receipt of the complaint.

  3. Investigation:

    a) The Editor-in-Chief will investigate the complaint thoroughly. This may involve reviewing correspondence and consulting relevant editorial board members, staff, or other parties involved.
    b) The complainant may be contacted if further information or clarification is needed. The investigation will be conducted impartially.

  4. Resolution and Response:

    a) Once the investigation is complete, the Editor-in-Chief will provide a written response to the complainant. This response will summarize the investigation's findings and outline any actions taken or proposed by PESSR to address the complaint.
    b) Possible outcomes can range from an explanation or apology to a commitment to review or revise relevant journal policies or procedures. If the complaint is found to be unsubstantiated, this will also be communicated.

  5. Escalation:

    a) If the complainant is not satisfied with the resolution provided by the Editor-in-Chief, they may request a further review by the Publisher (Rezki Media).
    b) PESSR will also consider guidance from COPE for complex or unresolved publication ethics complaints. While COPE does not arbitrate specific disputes, its guidance can inform the journal's process.

b. Procedure for Handling Appeals (Against editorial decisions on manuscripts)

  1. Submission of an Appeal:

    a) Authors wishing to appeal an editorial decision on their manuscript must do so in writing to the Editor-in-Chief.
    b) The appeal must be submitted by the corresponding author within 30 days of receiving the editorial decision.
    c) The appeal letter must clearly state the grounds for the appeal and provide a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal to the editor's and reviewers' comments that formed the basis of the decision being appealed. It should highlight any perceived errors, misunderstandings, or evidence of a flawed process.
    d) A revised manuscript should not be submitted with the appeal unless the original decision letter explicitly invited a resubmission subject to appeal.

  2. Assessment of the Appeal:

    a) The Editor-in-Chief will first assess the appeal to determine if it meets the valid grounds for an appeal as outlined in Section 3 of this policy.
    b) If the appeal is not based on valid grounds (e.g., it is merely an expression of disagreement with the scientific judgment), it may be dismissed at this stage.

  3. Appeal Investigation:

    a) If the appeal is deemed to have merit, the Editor-in-Chief will reconsider the manuscript. This process may involve:
    (1) Re-evaluating the original manuscript, the peer reviewers' reports, and the authors' rebuttal.
    (2) Seeking further advice from the original handling editor or reviewers (if appropriate, and their anonymity can be maintained).
    (3) Consulting with another member of the PESSR Editorial Board or an independent external expert who was not involved in the original decision.

  4. Decision on Appeal:

    a) The Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision on the appeal. This decision is binding.
    b) The corresponding author will be informed of the outcome of the appeal in writing, with a clear explanation for the decision.
    c) PESSR will typically consider only one appeal per manuscript.

  5. Possible Outcomes of an Appeal:

    a) The original editorial decision is upheld.
    b) The manuscript is invited for a new round of peer review (potentially with new reviewers).
    c) The original decision is overturned, and the manuscript proceeds in the editorial workflow (e.g., acceptance, or acceptance pending minor revisions). This outcome is rare and usually follows evidence of a significant flaw in the original review process.
    d) The manuscript remains rejected, but for different or clarified reasons.

C. Record Keeping

PESSR will maintain confidential records of all complaints and appeals received, including all related correspondence, details of investigations undertaken, and outcomes. These records will be used to monitor and improve journal processes.

This policy is subject to periodic review and may be updated to reflect evolving best practices and COPE guidelines.

 

COPE resources