LOCUS JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Complaints and Appeals Policy

Fair procedures · Editorial accountability · Independent assessment

How to contact the editorial office

Use the journal’s official Contact page or the OJS editorial discussion attached to the relevant submission. Include the manuscript or article identifier and documentary evidence, where applicable.

01. Purpose and Scope

Locus Journal of Academic Literature Review (JALR) provides a fair, confidential, and documented mechanism for submitting complaints about journal procedures, editorial conduct, peer review management, and publication practices, as well as appeals against editorial decisions. Concerns may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, research participants, and other parties with a legitimate interest in a submission or published article.

02. Matters Covered

A complaint may concern undue delay, failure to follow stated editorial procedures, confidentiality breaches, inappropriate reviewer or editor conduct, unmanaged conflicts of interest, accessibility concerns, or other alleged failures of journal practice. An appeal concerns a specific editorial decision and must explain why a procedural error, material factual misunderstanding, undisclosed conflict, or significant new evidence warrants reconsideration.

A difference of scholarly opinion or dissatisfaction with rejection, without substantiated grounds, does not by itself establish a valid appeal. Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, authorship disputes, or concerns regarding published articles are also addressed under the journal's Publication Ethics and Corrections and Retractions policies.

03. How to Submit a Complaint or Appeal

Submissions should be sent through the journal's official contact channel. For a manuscript under consideration, authors should use the OJS editorial correspondence where available. Clearly mark the subject as “Editorial Complaint” or “Editorial Appeal” and include the manuscript title, submission ID or DOI (where relevant), a concise description, supporting evidence, prior correspondence, and the outcome sought.

To allow timely assessment, authors are encouraged to submit appeals within 30 calendar days of the decision. This is an administrative target, not an automatic bar to considering a serious ethical concern raised later. Anonymous concerns may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific, verifiable information.

04. Acknowledgement and Initial Assessment

The editorial office aims to acknowledge receipt within five working days and to provide an initial assessment or progress update within 15 working days, where reasonably possible. The initial assessment checks whether the issue falls within the journal's remit, whether more evidence is needed, and whether immediate steps are necessary to protect confidentiality or research integrity.

Complex cases, institutional investigations, or requests for independent advice may take longer. In such cases the complainant will receive an appropriate status update without compromising confidentiality or the fairness of the inquiry.

05. Independent and Impartial Handling

A complaint is normally assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a suitably assigned editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. An appeal should, where practicable, be reviewed by an editor who did not make the original decision. If the Editor-in-Chief is implicated, the matter must be referred to an unconflicted editorial board member or an appropriate representative of the publisher who can arrange an independent assessment.

A party whose conduct is being questioned must not determine the outcome of the complaint. Relevant parties may be invited to provide clarification and supporting documents. The journal may request an independent expert opinion where justified.

06. Review, Findings, and Possible Outcomes

The journal assesses the available evidence fairly, records the reasoning, and communicates an outcome in writing. Depending on the findings, the journal may uphold the original decision; clarify the reasoning; correct a procedural failure; appoint an independent editor or reviewer; commission further review; reconsider the manuscript; or take appropriate action under its ethics and post-publication policies.

An appeal does not guarantee acceptance or publication. When allegations involve institutions, research ethics committees, or third parties, the journal may seek their cooperation while maintaining editorial independence.

07. Confidentiality and Protection Against Retaliation

Complaints, reviewer identities, unpublished manuscripts, and personal information are shared only with individuals who reasonably need access to assess the matter, subject to applicable legal and ethical obligations. The journal will not disadvantage a person solely for submitting a good-faith concern. Knowingly false or abusive submissions may be handled proportionately, without discouraging legitimate reporting.

08. Records, Escalation, and Policy Coordination

The journal keeps authentic records of complaints and appeals, including submission dates, supporting materials, correspondence, assigned handlers, findings, and actions taken. If a concern cannot be resolved internally, it may be referred, as appropriate, to the publisher, the relevant author's institution, or another competent authority. Reference to COPE guidance does not imply that JALR is a COPE member or that COPE will adjudicate complaints involving this journal.

This policy operates alongside the journal's Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest Policy, Research Ethics and Data Sharing Policy, and Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

Commitment to Procedural Fairness

All cases are handled according to their evidence and circumstances. The journal does not promise a predetermined outcome or an accelerated publication decision in response to any complaint or appeal.