Complaints & Appeals Policy

COMPLAINTS & APPEALS POLICY

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer)

ISSN: 2822-4841 | DOI Prefix: 10.29329

Quick Summary

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) (eISSN: 2822-4841) is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, confidentially, and transparently, in accordance with the journal’s ethical standards and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. This policy covers complaints about the journal’s editorial processes and published content, as well as appeals against editorial decisions.

1) Scope

This policy applies to:

Appeals

Appeals against editorial decisions (e.g., rejection after peer review, revision requirements considered unjustified).

Complaints

Publication ethics and research integrity concerns (e.g., suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, undisclosed conflicts of interest);
Concerns about the peer review process (e.g., perceived bias, unreasonable delays, breach of confidentiality);
Editorial conduct or conflicts of interest;
Publication errors or post-publication issues (e.g., errors in published articles, authorship disputes).

Who may file?

Appeals may be filed by authors of manuscripts that have received an editorial decision from PedPer. Complaints may be filed by any party with a legitimate concern, including authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, and institutional representatives.

2) How to Submit a Complaint or Appeal

Requests should be emailed to the Editorial Office at: info@pedagogicalperspective.com

Please include:

Manuscript/article title and DOI or URL (or submission ID);
A clear description of the issue;
Supporting evidence (documents, references, screenshots, similarity excerpts, etc.);
Whether the request is an appeal (decision-related) or a complaint (process/content-related);
Any relevant information about potential conflicts of interest.

Complaints and appeals should be submitted in English and in writing. Oral or informal communications will not be treated as formal complaints or appeals.

3) Time Limits

Appeals of editorial decisions: Authors should submit appeals within 30 days of receiving the editorial decision. Appeals submitted after this period may still be considered if the author provides a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Complaints about published articles: PedPer accepts complaints up to 12 months from the date of first publication. In exceptional cases involving serious ethical concerns (e.g., fabrication, plagiarism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest), PedPer may consider complaints beyond this period.

4) Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Grounds for appeal

An appeal should be based on one or more of the following grounds:

A substantive error or misunderstanding in the evaluation of the manuscript (e.g., factual misinterpretation of methodology or findings by reviewers);
Evidence of procedural irregularity (e.g., failure to follow the stated peer review process, conflict of interest of a reviewer);
Availability of significant new evidence or data that was not available at the time of the original decision.

Disagreement with the editorial judgment alone, without substantive grounds, does not constitute a basis for appeal.

Appeal process

Acknowledgment: The editorial office will acknowledge receipt of the appeal within 5 business days.
Review: The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) reviews the appeal, the original reviewer reports, and any new evidence submitted by the author(s).
Independent assessment: Where warranted, the EiC may invite an independent reviewer (not involved in the original evaluation) to reassess the manuscript.
Decision: The EiC aims to communicate the outcome of the appeal within 2 months. The appeal may result in: (a) confirmation of the original decision; (b) a request for revision based on new or additional review; or (c) reassignment for additional independent review.

Final decisions on appeals rest with the Editor-in-Chief and are considered conclusive. A manuscript may only be appealed once. Second appeals on the same manuscript will not be considered.

5) Complaints

Assessment and handling

PedPer will:

Acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 5 business days (where contact details are available);
Conduct an initial review for completeness and relevance;
Assign the case to an appropriate decision-maker:

The Editor-in-Chief oversees complaints as a general rule. If the complaint involves the EiC, a handling editor, a guest editor, or any conflict of interest, the case will be assigned to an independent editor or an appropriate committee.

Request clarification or additional evidence when needed;
Investigate the matter in accordance with COPE flowcharts and PedPer’s Handling Allegations of Misconduct Policy, where the complaint involves research integrity concerns.

Possible outcomes

Depending on the case, PedPer may:

Find the complaint unsubstantiated (no further action);
Correct publication errors (Erratum or Corrigendum);
Publish an Expression of Concern while an investigation is ongoing;
Retract the article, in accordance with the journal’s retraction policy;
Issue an editorial notice;
Refer serious misconduct allegations to the authors’ institution(s) or relevant ethics bodies;
Report the matter to COPE for guidance, where appropriate.

For full details on the retraction process, see the Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern Policy.

6) Anonymous Complaints

PedPer will consider anonymous complaints where sufficient evidence is provided to warrant investigation. However, anonymous complaints may be more difficult to investigate effectively, as the editorial office may be unable to request clarification or additional evidence. Complainants are encouraged to provide contact details, which will be treated confidentially.

7) Conflicts of Interest in Handling

If a complaint or appeal involves the Editor-in-Chief, a Section Editor, a Guest Editor, or any member of the editorial team who may have a conflict of interest, the case will be reassigned to an independent editor or committee member who has no connection to the matter. This ensures impartiality and fairness in all cases, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

8) Fairness, Confidentiality, and Non-Retaliation

All complaints and appeals are handled respectfully and confidentially, shared only on a need-to-know basis.
PedPer aims to ensure fairness to all parties and will not tolerate retaliatory or abusive communications from any party.
Decisions are based on evidence and the integrity of the scholarly record.
All parties are given the opportunity to respond to allegations before a final decision is reached.
The confidentiality and rights of all parties are protected in accordance with PedPer’s Privacy Statement Policy.

9) Response Time Targets

Stage	Target Duration
Acknowledgment of receipt	≤ 5 business days
Initial triage / completeness check	≤ 2 weeks
Request for additional evidence (if needed)	As required
Appeal decision	≤ 2 months
Complaint resolution (standard cases)	≤ 3 months
Complaint resolution (complex / institutional referral)	May exceed 3 months; parties informed

Note: These timelines are targets. Complex cases requiring external input (e.g., institutional investigations, independent expert review) may take longer. All parties will be kept informed of progress.

10) Escalation

If a complainant or appellant is not satisfied with PedPer’s response, or if the journal is unable to resolve the matter internally, the case may be escalated to:

COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) — PedPer follows COPE guidelines and supports referral to COPE for guidance or mediation in complex cases;
The authors’ or complainant’s affiliated institution(s);
The publisher, where the complaint concerns journal-level governance or policy.

Parties wishing to escalate a matter should inform the editorial office, which will provide relevant documentation and cooperate with external bodies as appropriate.

11) Record-Keeping

PedPer maintains confidential records of all complaints and appeals, including the nature of the case, the evidence considered, the actions taken, and the outcome. These records are retained for a minimum of five years and are used to monitor patterns, improve editorial processes, and demonstrate accountability to indexing bodies and ethics organisations.

Related Policies