Complaints & Appeals Policy

ARCITECH  /  PUBLICATION INTEGRITY STANDARDS

Complaints & Appeals Policy

Fair editorial reconsideration, accountable complaint handling, independent oversight, and responsible protection of the scholarly record.

Evidence-Based Appeals Conflict-Free Assessment Confidential Handling
POLICY AT A GLANCE
APPEAL
Evidence-based
Reconsideration of an editorial decision
COMPLAINT
Fair Process
Editorial conduct, process and integrity
INDEPENDENCE
Conflict-Free
Review separated from the disputed handler
Editorial appeals and complaints are assessed independently and confidentially, as far as practicable. A successful appeal may reopen an editorial evaluation; it does not guarantee manuscript acceptance. Any change to the published scholarly record follows ARCITECH’s separate post-publication policy.
SECTION 01 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Purpose and Scope

ARCITECH maintains a fair, evidence-based and confidential procedure for reviewing editorial appeals and complaints. An editorial appeal requests reconsideration of a specific editorial decision; a complaint concerns editorial conduct, procedural fairness, communications, confidentiality, or practices of the journal, its editorial personnel or publisher. The two procedures are related but are not interchangeable.

  • Applies to authors, reviewers, readers, editorial staff, research institutions, and other persons raising a credible concern.
  • Covers submissions under review, editorial decisions, journal processes and relevant post-publication conduct.
  • Research-misconduct allegations and corrections/retractions also follow the journal’s respective integrity policies.
SECTION 02 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Grounds for Editorial Appeals

An appeal must explain a specific, material reason why reconsideration is warranted. A rejected manuscript is not automatically entitled to another round of review.

  • A demonstrable factual or technical error that materially affected the decision.
  • A substantial misunderstanding of the manuscript or of evidence already provided.
  • A documented procedural irregularity, unmanaged conflict of interest, reviewer impersonation, or inappropriate editorial influence.
  • Credible evidence that relevant scientific information was overlooked in reaching the decision.
  • Disagreement with a reasoned scientific judgment, author preference, or an unfavorable recommendation alone is not sufficient.
SECTION 03 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Matters That May Be Reported

Complaints may concern the conduct or administration of the journal even when no particular acceptance or rejection decision is being appealed.

  • Unreasonable delays without appropriate communication; unexplained changes to normal workflow.
  • Potential bias, discrimination, harassment, abusive communications or coercive citation requests.
  • Possible breaches of confidentiality, peer-review integrity, or improper reviewer/editor conduct.
  • Concerns about undisclosed competing interests, improper influence, or a mismatch between published policy and actual practice.
  • Post-publication concerns regarding data, code, figures, ethics declarations, or scientific reliability.
SECTION 04 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Who May Submit a Concern

The corresponding author normally submits an editorial appeal on behalf of all authors, with confirmation that the authors have been informed. Complaints may be submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, institutions or others with relevant evidence.

  • Good-faith anonymous concerns may be screened when they include enough verifiable detail, although communication and follow-up may be limited.
  • A report should not be dismissed merely because it is critical of the journal or a senior editor.
  • Knowingly fabricated allegations, threats or harassment are not protected by the good-faith reporting provisions.
SECTION 05 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Submission Channel and Supporting Evidence

Send a written message to arcitech.journal@iaincurup.ac.id. Use the email subject Editorial Appeal — [Submission ID] or Formal Complaint — [Submission ID / DOI].

  • Your name and contact details (unless an anonymous report is necessary), and your relationship to the case.
  • Manuscript title and ID, or the published article DOI / URL when relevant.
  • The decision or conduct at issue, relevant dates, and a concise, evidence-based description.
  • Supporting documents, specific reviewer/editor comments, correspondence or technical records as appropriate.
  • The outcome requested (clarification, reassessment, procedural review, correction, or another proportionate remedy).
SECTION 06 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Acknowledgment and Response Targets

ARCITECH aims to acknowledge an identifiable complaint or appeal within five working days and to communicate an initial substantive outcome or progress update within 30 calendar days of receiving a sufficiently documented submission. These are operational targets, not guaranteed deadlines; complex cases, independent review, legal constraints or institutional investigations may require more time.

  • Editorial appeals should normally be submitted within 30 calendar days of the decision notice; later appeals may be considered when there is good reason or newly available material evidence.
  • If further time is needed, the editorial office should explain the delay when feasible and provide a reasonable next update.
SECTION 07 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Impartial Assessment and Conflict Management

Complaints and appeals must be handled by a person with sufficient authority and expertise who was not materially involved in the disputed decision, wherever practicable.

  • The handling editor concerned must not adjudicate a complaint about their own conduct.
  • A matter involving the Editor-in-Chief must be referred to a conflict-free publisher representative or independently appointed qualified editor.
  • If a publisher representative is involved in the concern, an appropriately independent and qualified adviser should be appointed.
  • Decisions and recusals must be documented, and a complainant should be informed about the independent route available where relevant.
SECTION 08 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Editorial Appeal Review Procedure

The designated unconflicted reviewer of an appeal first examines its admissibility and supporting evidence; it is not an automatic resubmission or a vote on the opinions of the original reviewers.

  • Check the decision letter, manuscript history, review reports, revised files and the grounds raised.
  • Seek clarification or technical advice when necessary, without disclosing reviewer identities beyond authorized personnel.
  • Determine whether the original assessment was materially flawed or whether the decision remains supportable.
  • Where warranted, arrange an independent editorial reassessment or a further qualified review round.
  • Communicate a reasoned written outcome: uphold, clarify, reopen review, or offer another appropriate remedy. No appeal guarantees acceptance.
SECTION 09 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Complaints Investigation and Resolution

The journal registers the concern, conducts an initial risk and evidence assessment, assigns a conflict-free handler, requests relevant responses where appropriate, and records a proportionate outcome.

  • Affected individuals should have a fair opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.
  • Editors may seek technical, ethics or institutional advice when the matter lies beyond ordinary editorial competence.
  • Serious research misconduct may need referral to the relevant research institution; the journal remains responsible for its own publication decisions.
  • Potential outcomes include clarification, apology, procedural correction, reviewer/editor reassignment, independent review, training, or referral under the post-publication policy.
SECTION 10 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Post-Publication and Research Integrity Concerns

Reports that question the reliability or ethics of a published article must be considered under ARCITECH’s Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern Policy. This Complaints & Appeals Policy provides the route for submitting and fairly assessing complaints but does not replace that separate decision framework.

  • Authors may be asked to supply original data, source code, model settings, logs or other evidence where material and lawful.
  • Public notices must not be delayed merely because an appeal is pending when timely action is necessary to protect the scholarly record.
  • Retraction or correction appeals must be assessed on the evidence and applicable publication-integrity policy.
SECTION 11 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Computer Science, AI and Cybersecurity Cases

For computing and AI research, disputed assessments may involve specialized technical evidence. ARCITECH should use a qualified independent specialist where necessary and evaluate the reliability of the methods rather than academic seniority or reputation.

  • Examples include contested dataset splits, data leakage, benchmark calculations, claimed code availability, or inconsistent numerical results.
  • For computer-vision and generative-AI research, allegations may concern misleading images, fabricated data, synthetic examples presented as real, or incomplete AI-use declarations.
  • Sensitive log files, credentials, unpublished vulnerabilities and protected datasets must be handled securely and must not be published as part of the complaint record.
SECTION 12 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Confidentiality, Fairness and Non-Retaliation

Information is shared only to the extent reasonably necessary to evaluate the concern or meet legal or institutional obligations. Confidentiality cannot be absolute if due process requires disclosure to relevant parties.

  • ARCITECH should not disadvantage an author, reviewer, reader, or whistleblower merely for bringing a good-faith concern.
  • The identities of confidential reviewers and protected reporters should be safeguarded as far as practicable.
  • Unverified allegations must not be presented publicly as established findings; all affected parties should be treated respectfully.
  • Artificial intelligence tools must not be given confidential manuscripts or complaint records without verified lawful authority and robust safeguards.
SECTION 13 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Further Review and Escalation

Where material new evidence emerges, or a substantial procedural defect remains unresolved, a complainant may request one further independent reconsideration. A renewed request should specify the new information or unaddressed issue rather than simply repeating the first submission.

  • Complaints about the Editor-in-Chief are escalated to the publisher’s designated conflict-free representative.
  • Where internal independence is inadequate, appropriate external expert advice may be sought.
  • COPE is not a general complaint adjudicator for non-member journals; ARCITECH does not claim membership or external recourse that has not been verified.
SECTION 14 / ARCITECH EDITORIAL INTEGRITY

Recordkeeping and Communication

ARCITECH should retain a confidential administrative record of the concern, underlying evidence, assigned handlers, relevant conflicts, communications, procedural steps, decisions and follow-up actions in an access-controlled location.

  • Editorial appeal records may be linked to the OJS submission history where confidentiality controls permit.
  • A written determination should explain the essential rationale and outcome, subject to privacy and reviewer confidentiality.
  • Only the information needed to correct the public scholarly record should appear in an editorial notice; other complaint files normally remain confidential.
Official Editorial Contact

ARCITECH Editorial Office, Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Curup, Indonesia

arcitech.journal@iaincurup.ac.id

For complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief, request conflict-free referral to the publisher and do not send confidential case materials to a person implicated in the complaint.

This policy is aligned with COPE Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Reference to these standards does not imply COPE membership, DOAJ indexing, certification or endorsement.