COMPLAINTS & APPEALS POLICY

The Link journal of Speech, Language and Audiology (JSLA) is committed to maintaining high ethical standards and a fair, transparent, and accountable editorial process. This policy explains how authors, reviewers, and readers may raise complaints or submit appeals, and how the journal will handle these matters in a manner that preserves editorial independence, procedural fairness, confidentiality, and the integrity of the scholarly record. JSLA evaluates complaints and appeals using established publication ethics principles, ensuring that concerns are addressed proportionately, evidence is assessed carefully, and decisions are communicated clearly with reasons.

Types of Complaints Accepted

1.1 Editorial Decisions

JSLA accepts complaints and formal appeals relating to editorial decision-making, including concerns that a rejection was issued without adequate rationale, that reviewer comments were materially misinterpreted in the decision process, or that there were excessive or unreasonable delays during editorial screening, peer review, or revision assessment. Where delays occur due to reviewer availability or the complexity of evaluation, the journal aims to communicate updates, but it also recognizes that authors may reasonably request review of processing timelines if delays become disproportionate.

1.2 Peer Review Conduct

JSLA accepts complaints relating to reviewer conduct and peer review integrity. These include concerns regarding perceived reviewer bias, inappropriate or unprofessional reviewer language, potential conflicts of interest that were not declared, or evidence suggesting manipulation of the peer review process. The journal treats allegations of compromised peer review seriously because such issues can undermine fairness to authors and trust in editorial outcomes.

1.3 Publication Ethics

JSLA accepts complaints involving publication ethics, including allegations of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, unethical research practices, undisclosed competing interests, authorship disputes, reviewer misconduct, or editorial misconduct. The journal also accepts post-publication ethics concerns submitted by readers, such as credible allegations that a published article contains unreliable findings, undisclosed conflicts, or ethical approval deficiencies.

1.4 Journal Management Issues

JSLA accepts complaints related to journal management and administrative operations, including technical website errors, access problems, archiving or preservation concerns, publication fee billing disputes, and undue communication delays. The journal recognizes that operational concerns can materially affect authors and readers and therefore addresses them through a structured administrative pathway distinct from editorial decision-making.

How to Submit a Complaint

Complaints and appeals must be submitted in writing by email so that the journal can maintain a traceable record and evaluate evidence properly. For editorial complaints and appeals, correspondence should be sent to editor@jsla.com. For publisher-level or administrative complaints, including billing or technical operational issues, correspondence should be directed to the publisher’s official contact route as published on the journal website; where authors prefer a single entry point, editor@JSLA.com may be used and the journal will route the matter appropriately while protecting confidentiality.

To support efficient and fair handling, complainants should include their full name and contact email, the manuscript ID or article citation where applicable, a clear description of the concern, the dates and timeline of relevant events where possible, and any supporting documentation such as emails, screenshots, reviewer comments, or other records that substantiate the claim. Submissions that lack essential identifying information or sufficient detail may be returned with a request for clarification so that the journal can proceed responsibly.

Acknowledgement & Response Time

JSLA acknowledges receipt of complaints and appeals within approximately three working days. The journal aims to provide a full response within two to four weeks, depending on the complexity of the matter and whether additional fact-finding is required. Where a complaint involves complex allegations, multiple stakeholders, or potential research integrity investigation, the journal may require additional time; in such cases, JSLA provides interim updates to the complainant so expectations remain clear and the process remains transparent.

Complaints Handling Process

4.1 Initial Screening

All complaints and appeals undergo an initial screening to confirm the category of concern, assess whether the journal has jurisdiction, and determine whether immediate protective actions are required. This screening is typically overseen by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated senior editor for editorial matters, or by a designated administrative officer for operational matters. The journal evaluates whether the complaint is made in good faith, whether it is supported by adequate information for review, and whether the issue is best handled as an appeal, an ethics inquiry, or an administrative correction.

4.2 Investigation

When a complaint proceeds beyond screening, JSLA conducts an investigation proportionate to the claim. This may include review of editorial logs, peer review records, decision correspondence, reviewer invitations and reports, similarity screening results, and relevant file histories. Where appropriate, the journal may communicate with reviewers, editors, or authors to clarify points of fact, while protecting confidentiality and avoiding disclosure of sensitive information beyond those who need to know. If additional information is required from the complainant, JSLA will request it and pause adjudication until sufficient information is available to proceed responsibly.

4.3 Decision

Following investigation, JSLA issues a written decision that explains the outcome and the reasoning, to the extent permitted by confidentiality obligations. Where an error is confirmed, the journal implements corrective action, which may include administrative correction, process adjustment, reviewer management actions, or post-publication notices such as corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions where warranted. Where a complaint is not upheld, the decision letter will explain the basis for that conclusion in a clear and professional manner.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal editorial decisions, including rejections and ethics-based decisions, when they believe a material error has occurred in evaluation or process. Appeals are not intended as a mechanism to re-litigate scholarly disagreement alone; rather, they are considered when there is credible indication of procedural irregularity, demonstrable misunderstanding of key scientific or methodological elements, significant new information, or concerns about fairness or bias. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor who was not involved in the original decision, and the journal may seek independent external input where specialized expertise is required to evaluate the appeal fairly.

Possible outcomes of an appeal include upholding the original decision with an explanation, overturning the decision, appointing new reviewers, or initiating an additional review round under a different handling editor. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance, and the journal retains discretion to determine whether additional review is justified based on the evidence and the journal’s standards.

Conflict of Interest in Handling Complaints

If a complaint or appeal involves an editor, reviewer, editorial board member, or any individual with a potential conflict of interest, JSLA transfers handling to an independent senior editor or an appropriate oversight pathway to ensure neutrality. Individuals named in a complaint are excluded from decision-making and from access to confidential adjudication materials beyond what is strictly necessary for fact-finding and due process.

Confidentiality

JSLA treats complaints and appeals as confidential and limits access to information to those directly involved in resolution. The journal protects reviewer identities consistent with its peer review model and does not disclose confidential peer review information to complainants except where disclosure is necessary, lawful, and ethically appropriate. JSLA may share limited information with institutions, funders, or oversight bodies when serious integrity concerns require external investigation or notification, and such actions are taken in a controlled manner that respects due process.

Corrective & Preventive Actions

Where a complaint is upheld, JSLA may implement corrective and preventive actions appropriate to the nature and severity of the concern. These actions may include correction or retraction of a published article, publication of an expression of concern, issuance of clarifying statements, adjustment of editorial workflow, replacement or suspension of reviewers, targeted training for stakeholders involved in process failures, formal apologies where warranted, and policy updates to reduce recurrence. In serious cases involving confirmed misconduct, JSLA may notify relevant institutions or funders and may apply proportionate sanctions such as temporary submission restrictions, while ensuring that any action taken is justified, documented, and consistent with ethical governance.

Alignment with Ethical Standards

JSLA handles complaints and appeals in a manner aligned with widely adopted publication ethics principles and best practices for dispute resolution in scholarly publishing. The journal’s objective is to correct the record when needed, safeguard fair treatment of authors and reviewers, maintain editorial independence, and preserve trust in the journal’s processes and published content.