Complaints and Appeals

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Complaints and Appeals

Procedures for appealing editorial decisions and raising concerns about the way the journal operates.

The Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences (JETS) aims to treat every author, reviewer and reader fairly and to handle every manuscript with care.

Mistakes and misunderstandings can still happen. When they do, we want to hear about them, put them right where we can, and learn from them.

This page explains how to ask JETS to reconsider a decision on your manuscript (an appeal) and how to tell us about a problem with the way the journal has acted (a complaint). Our procedures follow the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Choosing the Right Route

Which Route Fits Your Concern?

Appeal

You disagree with a decision on your manuscript

For example, if your manuscript has been rejected and you believe there are valid grounds for reconsideration, use the appeals procedure in Section 3.

Complaint

You are unhappy with how the journal handled something

This may include delays, poor communication, conduct of an editor, reviewer or staff member, technical problems, billing or APC questions, or failure to follow published policies. Use the complaints procedure in Section 4.

Misconduct

You suspect research or publication misconduct

Suspected plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, authorship abuse, citation or peer-review manipulation, or other misconduct should be handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

Published Article

Scientific comment or criticism

Write to the editors. Substantive comments may be considered for publication as a letter to the editor, with the authors given a chance to reply.

Not sure which route applies? Write to jets@itb.ac.id and we will direct your message to the right place.

Our Commitments

When you raise an appeal or complaint, JETS will:

Acknowledge Acknowledge it in writing within 7 working days.

Independent Handling Have it handled by someone who was not involved in the matter you are raising.

Fair Consideration Consider it on its merits, whatever your seniority, institution or country.

Confidentiality Keep it confidential, sharing details only with those who need them to resolve it.

Written Outcome Tell you the outcome in writing, with reasons.

Updates Keep you informed if resolution will take longer than expected.

Good-faith concerns

Raising a concern in good faith will never count against you. It will not affect the handling of this or any future submission, or your standing as a reviewer.

Editorial Decisions

Appealing an Editorial Decision

3.1 When an Appeal Is Appropriate

Every rejection is disappointing, but not every rejection can be reversed. Appeals are most likely to succeed when authors can show that:

The decision rested on a clear factual or technical error by a reviewer or editor, for example a misread result, misunderstood method or mistaken calculation.

A reviewer's report was biased, discourteous or showed an undeclared conflict of interest, and the decision relied on it.

The review process did not follow the journal's own stated procedures.

Important information requested by reviewers can now be supplied and directly answers the main reason for rejection.

Appeals are unlikely to succeed when:

The manuscript was declined at initial screening because it falls outside the journal's scope.
Authors simply disagree with reviewers' scientific judgement or the editor's assessment of novelty or significance.
The decision was based on a high similarity score or other integrity concern that the authors have not addressed.
The appeal restates arguments already considered in the original review.

In these cases we recommend revising the work and submitting it elsewhere.

3.2 How to Appeal

The corresponding author sends an appeal letter to the Editor-in-Chief at jets@itb.ac.id within 30 days of the decision.

The subject line should contain:

Appeal — [Manuscript Number]

The letter should:

Explain which of the grounds in Section 3.1 applies.

Respond point by point to each reviewer and editor comment on which the decision was based.

Identify precisely any error, with reference to the relevant section, equation, figure or table.

Include any new evidence the authors wish to be considered.

Important

Please do not submit a revised manuscript with the appeal unless the editor asks for one. Do not submit the same manuscript as a new submission while the appeal is under consideration.

3.3 How Appeals Are Assessed

Initial Assessment The Editor-in-Chief, or an editor assigned by the Editor-in-Chief who was not involved in the original decision, checks whether the appeal is based on valid grounds. Appeals that are not are declined at this stage, with an explanation.

Detailed Review If the appeal has merit, the assigned editor reviews the manuscript, reviewer reports, original decision and authors' arguments. The editor may consult the original reviewers, another editorial board member, or an independent expert.

Outcome The authors are told the outcome, normally within 6 weeks of acknowledgement.

3.4 Possible Outcomes

The original decision stands.

The manuscript is sent for further review, usually by one or more new reviewers.

The authors are invited to revise and resubmit the manuscript.

The decision is reversed and the manuscript continues through the editorial process. This is rare and generally follows evidence of a significant error in the original review.

Finality of Appeals

Each manuscript may be appealed only once. The decision on an appeal is final.

If the original decision was made by the Editor-in-Chief, the appeal is assessed by an associate editor nominated by the editorial board.

Complaints

Making a Complaint

4.1 Who Can Complain

Anyone affected by the journal's actions may complain, including authors, reviewers, editors, readers and people mentioned in a published article.

4.2 How to Complain

Write to the Editor-in-Chief at jets@itb.ac.id with "Complaint" in the subject line.

Please include:

Your name and contact details.

The manuscript number or article DOI, if relevant.

What happened, when, and who was involved.

Any supporting correspondence or documents.

What you would like the journal to do.

Complaint concerning the Editor-in-Chief

If your complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, send it to the publisher instead:

Director, Directorate for Research and Innovation, Institut Teknologi Bandung
dri@itb.ac.id
Mark the message: "JETS complaint"

4.3 How Complaints Are Handled

Level 1

Editorial Office

The Editor-in-Chief, or an editor who is not the subject of the complaint, looks into the matter, reviews the records, and speaks to the people involved where needed.

You will receive a written response explaining what was found and what action, if any, will be taken, normally within 30 days.

Level 2

Publisher

If you are not satisfied with the Level 1 response, you may ask the Directorate for Research and Innovation, ITB, to review how your complaint was handled.

Please do so within 30 days of the Level 1 response. The publisher's review is the final internal stage.

Level 3

External Guidance

For unresolved complaints about publication ethics, the journal will take account of COPE's published guidance.

4.4 What a Complaint Can Lead To

Depending on what is found, the outcome may be:

Explanation of what happened Apology Correction to the published record Change to manuscript handling Action concerning an editor or reviewer Change to procedures or policies

If the complaint is not upheld, we will explain why.

Complaints about a published article's scientific content may result in a correction, expression of concern or retraction, following the procedures in our policy on allegations of misconduct.

Correspondence

Abusive or Repeated Correspondence

JETS expects everyone who contacts the journal to do so courteously.

We may decline to respond to messages that are abusive, threatening or harassing, or to complaints and appeals that repeat matters already fully considered without providing new information.

In such cases we will explain this decision once, in writing.

Records and Improvement