Complaints and Appeals Policy

1. Purpose

This policy establishes a fair, transparent and timely mechanism for handling complaints, appeals, whistleblowing reports and ethical concerns related to Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science (HCMCOUJS) editorial and publishing activities.

2. Scope

This policy applies to:

• author complaints;
• appeals against editorial decisions;
• reviewer complaints;
• reader complaints;
• publication ethics complaints;
• authorship complaints;
• data or image concerns;
• peer review concerns;
• AI misuse concerns;
• whistleblowing reports.

3. Complaints

A complaint is a concern regarding process, conduct, policy compliance, delay, communication, confidentiality or ethical handling.

Examples:

• unreasonable delay;
• procedural irregularity;
• conflict of interest;
• breach of confidentiality;
• disrespectful communication;
• failure to follow journal policy;
• suspected misconduct.

4. Appeals

An appeal is a request to reconsider an editorial decision.

Appeals must:

1. be submitted in writing;
2. identify the manuscript;
3. explain the grounds for appeal;
4. provide evidence;
5. avoid emotional or unsupported claims;
6. be submitted within the stated timeline.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision, re-review or acceptance.

5. Whistleblowing

Tạp chí accepts good-faith reports concerning possible misconduct.

Whistleblowers acting in good faith shall be protected from retaliation where reasonably possible.

Anonymous reports may be considered if they provide credible and verifiable information.

6. Ethics Complaints

Ethics complaints may involve:

• plagiarism;
• fabricated data;
• falsified data;
• authorship misconduct;
• peer review manipulation;
• citation manipulation;
• AI misuse;
• undisclosed conflict of interest;
• unethical research involving humans or animals;
• duplicate publication;
• paper mill activity.

7. Procedure

Standard procedure:

1. Receipt and acknowledgment within 5 working days.
2. Preliminary assessment within 10 working days.
3. Request for clarification or evidence where necessary.
4. Assignment to an independent editor or ethics handler.
5. Consultation with reviewers, editors, authors or institutions where appropriate.
6. Decision or recommendation within a reasonable timeline.
7. Notification of outcome.
8. Recordkeeping and possible follow-up action.

8. Appeal Review

Appeals should be reviewed by a person who was not directly responsible for the original decision, where possible.

Appeal review may consider:

• procedural error;
• overlooked evidence;
• reviewer inconsistency;
• conflict of interest;
• policy misapplication;
• new relevant information.

Appeals based only on disagreement with reviewer judgment may be rejected unless clear procedural or substantive error is shown.

9. Escalation Mechanism

Serious or unresolved cases may be escalated to:

1. Editor-in-Chief;
2. HCMCOUJS Editorial Council;
3. ethics oversight mechanism;
4. institution of the authors;
5. funding agency;
6. competent authority where legally required.

10. Possible Outcomes

Possible outcomes include:

• explanation to complainant;
• correction of process;
• reassignment of editor;
• additional peer review;
• confirmation of original decision;
• revision of decision;
• correction;
• expression of concern;
• retraction;
• referral to institution;
• policy update.

11. Confidentiality

Complaints and appeals shall be handled confidentially, fairly and without retaliation.

Information shall be shared only with persons who need to know for legitimate handling of the case.