Complaints Policy

The Journal of Al-Ma'moon University College (JAC) is committed to handling complaints professionally, fairly, transparently, and confidentially in a manner that protects the rights of authors, reviewers, readers, and members of the Editorial Board while safeguarding editorial independence and the integrity of scholarly publishing.

This policy governs the submission, examination, investigation, and resolution of complaints relating to manuscript submission, peer review, editorial procedures, publication ethics, confidentiality, published content, and compliance with the journal’s published policies.

First: Scope of Complaints

The journal considers complaints concerning:

Unjustified delays in editorial screening, peer review, or the issuance of an editorial decision.
A clear procedural failure in manuscript handling or the management of the peer-review process.
A breach of confidentiality regarding a manuscript, peer-review report, or the personal data of authors or reviewers.
Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, simultaneous submission, fabrication, falsification, or data manipulation.
A substantial error or unreliable information in a published article.
An undisclosed conflict of interest involving an author, reviewer, or editor.
Unprofessional or inappropriate conduct in correspondence, peer-review reports, or editorial procedures.
Misuse of authors’ or reviewers’ data or unpublished content.
A possible violation of the journal’s published editorial or ethical policies.

Policy Note: An author’s dissatisfaction with a rejection decision or reviewers’ comments does not, by itself, constitute a complaint unless it is based on a specific procedural failure, an ethical violation, or clear evidence that the journal’s policy was not properly applied. Scientific objections to editorial decisions are handled under the journal’s Appeals Policy.

Second: Submission of a Complaint

Complaints must be submitted formally through the journal’s online Open Journal Systems (OJS) portal or via the official email address published on the Contact Us page.

A complaint should include, as far as possible:

The complainant’s full name, academic role, institutional affiliation, and official contact information.
The manuscript title and system ID number, or the title, link, or DOI of the published article concerned.
A clear and specific description of the matter giving rise to the complaint.
The date on which the matter occurred or was discovered.
Any supporting evidence, documents, or relevant correspondence.
A statement of the specific action or remedy requested by the complainant.

Messages sent through messaging applications or social media platforms are not regarded as formal complaints and must be resubmitted through official channels for formal registration and tracking.

Third: Anonymous Complaints

The journal may consider an anonymous complaint when it contains specific information and clear, verifiable evidence of serious scientific or ethical misconduct.

An investigation may not be possible if an anonymous complaint lacks sufficient detail or provides no means of requesting clarification. However, a complaint shall not be dismissed solely because the complainant has not disclosed their identity, provided that the submitted evidence is credible and capable of independent verification.

Fourth: Registration and Initial Assessment

The journal acknowledges receipt of a complaint within no more than five (5) working days and provides the complainant with a tracking reference number.

Each complaint undergoes an initial assessment to determine:

Whether it falls within the journal’s official responsibility.
Whether the facts and claims are clearly stated.
Whether sufficient information and verifiable evidence are available for examination.
Whether the same matter has previously been resolved without the presentation of new evidence.
Whether the complaint contains personal abuse, threats, or unverifiable general accusations.

The journal may request additional documentation before initiating a formal investigation. If a complaint falls outside the journal’s responsibility, the complainant will be informed and, where possible, directed to the appropriate authority.

Fifth: Independence and Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest

A complaint shall be examined by an individual or committee with no direct involvement or interest in the matter concerned. Any editor or Editorial Board member with a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from handling the case.

Complaint regarding an Editorial Board Member: Referred directly to the Editor-in-Chief or to an independent senior member who was not involved in the matter.
Complaint regarding the Editor-in-Chief: Referred directly to the Deanship of Al-Ma'moon University College or an authorized independent academic committee. The Editor-in-Chief shall not participate in the investigation or decision-making process.

Complainants are not entitled to demand the disclosure of reviewers’ identities or access confidential details protected by the journal’s double-blind peer-review policy.

Sixth: Examination and Investigation

Depending on the nature of the complaint, the journal may take one or more of the following steps:

Review manuscript submission records, double-blind peer-review reports, editorial decisions, and related correspondence.
Request formal explanations or responses from authors, reviewers, editors, or other relevant parties.
Consult an independent expert or specialist on the scientific or ethical aspects of the complaint.
Compare allegations against the journal’s published policies and the submitted evidence.
Contact the author’s affiliated institution or competent authorities when an institutional inquiry is required.
Temporarily suspend the processing or publication of a manuscript when serious concerns require investigation before proceedings can continue.
Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the investigation and avoid publicizing allegations prior to proper examination.

The journal provides relevant parties with a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations before a final decision is reached, unless valid legal or ethical reasons prevent doing so.

Seventh: Outcomes of the Complaint Review

After completing the review, the journal may take appropriate action, including:

Dismissal: Dismiss the complaint if it is unsubstantiated or supported by insufficient evidence.
Clarification: Provide formal clarification regarding the applied editorial procedure or policy.
Procedural Correction: Correct a procedural error or repeat a specific stage of manuscript processing or peer review.
Reassignment: Assign a different editor or reviewer if a conflict of interest or lack of impartiality is established.
Expert Assessment: Request an additional scientific evaluation by an independent expert.
Correction: Update or correct information in the manuscript or on the journal’s website.
Formal Notices: Publish an erratum/correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice in accordance with the journal’s post-publication policy.
Rejection: Reject a manuscript or discontinue its publication process if misconduct is established prior to publication.
Institutional Referral: Refer the matter to the author’s academic institution or governing authority in cases of severe or repeated misconduct.
Administrative Action: Take appropriate administrative action if a participant in the editorial process violates the journal's policies.

Eighth: Timeframe for Handling Complaints

The journal aims to complete the initial assessment within fifteen (15) working days and to issue a final formal response within thirty (30) working days from the date all required information is received.

When a complaint is complex or requires specialist advice or institutional communication, the review period may be extended. In such cases, the complainant will be notified of the delay, the current stage of the process, and provided with periodic updates.

The final response shall be issued formally, detailing the outcome of the review and any actions taken within the boundaries of confidentiality and data protection laws.

Ninth: Request for Reconsideration

A complainant may request reconsideration of the outcome once, within fifteen (15) working days of receiving the official decision, provided the request is based on:

A substantial procedural failure during the complaint handling process.
New evidence that was unavailable during the original investigation.
A clear inconsistency between the outcome and the journal’s published policies.

Whenever possible, reconsideration requests are assigned to an independent committee or individual not involved in the original decision. Repeating previous arguments without new evidence or justification will not lead to reopening the investigation.

Tenth: Confidentiality and Data Protection

The journal treats all complaints, records, and related communications as strictly confidential. Access is restricted solely to authorized individuals investigating or acting upon the complaint.

Submitted information is used exclusively to evaluate the complaint and protect the integrity of the scholarly record. The minimum necessary details may only be shared with an institutional authority when explicitly required by the nature of the investigation. Complaint records are archived securely for documentation and procedural evaluation.

Eleventh: Protection of Complainants

Submitting a complaint in good faith shall not result in any disadvantage, retaliation, or improper influence on the complainant’s current or future manuscript submissions or interactions with the Journal of Al-Ma'moon University College.

The journal will not take punitive action against individuals who provide accurate information or raise legitimate ethical concerns, even if the investigation ultimately does not establish misconduct.

Twelfth: Malicious or Abusive Complaints

The journal reserves the right to close a complaint without further review if it is determined to be:

Malicious or submitted for harassment or reputational damage.
Containing threats, hostility, or personally abusive language.
Based on vague, general allegations lacking verifiable evidence.
A repeated submission of a matter already resolved without presenting new evidence.
Intended to improperly pressure the editorial board or influence editorial decisions.

Closing an abusive complaint does not prevent the journal from independently reviewing any credible scientific or ethical evidence embedded within it.

Thirteenth: Continuous Improvement

The Editorial Board periodically reviews recurring complaints and their outcomes to refine manuscript screening, improve peer-review quality, reduce processing delays, and strengthen transparency and institutional integrity across all operations at the Journal of Al-Ma'moon University College.