Purpose and Scope
This policy provides a structured route for complaints relating to Treata journals or publishing activities. Complaints may concern process, conduct, communication, conflicts, policy application, governance, service, confidentiality, or other matters within the publisher’s responsibility.
A complaint is distinct from an editorial appeal, which challenges a specific editorial decision on substantive grounds, although some matters may contain elements of both.
What a Complaint Should Include
A useful complaint should identify the journal or publishing activity, the matter complained of, relevant dates or correspondence where available, the outcome sought, and any supporting information needed to understand the concern.
Complainants should avoid unnecessary disclosure of confidential, sensitive, or personal information unrelated to the issue.
Triage and Appropriate Route
Treata should determine whether the matter is best handled as a complaint, appeal, research-integrity concern, privacy matter, legal issue, or routine service enquiry. Routing a matter appropriately is intended to ensure suitable expertise and independence, not to prevent consideration.
Urgent risks involving participant safety, privacy, unlawful disclosure, or serious threats to the scholarly record may require accelerated handling.
Fairness and Independence
A person whose conduct is materially challenged should not be the sole decision-maker on the complaint. Appropriate independence may be achieved through another editor, senior publisher representative, governance role, or external advice depending on the nature of the matter.
Relevant parties may be asked to provide information or respond to factual concerns before conclusions are reached.
Confidentiality and Privacy
Complaints should be handled with appropriate confidentiality, but absolute confidentiality cannot always be guaranteed when fair assessment requires information to be shared with relevant people or bodies.
Personal data should be limited to what is reasonably necessary for assessment, record keeping, legal compliance, or resolution.
Complaints About Editorial Conduct
Concerns about bias, conflicts, inappropriate communication, confidentiality, reviewer conduct, editorial interference, or inconsistent policy application should be assessed against the applicable Treata standards and the journal’s declared procedures.
Disagreement with a scientific decision alone should normally be addressed through the appeals route rather than reframed as misconduct by an editor or reviewer without supporting evidence.
Integrity and Whistleblowing Concerns
A complaint that raises credible concerns about research or publication integrity should be referred to the appropriate integrity process. The substance of the concern should be assessed independently of the complainant’s status, affiliation, seniority, or anonymity.
Knowingly abusive, harassing, or repetitive submissions may be managed proportionately, but this should not be used to suppress credible good-faith reporting.
Communication and Resolution
The publisher or journal should acknowledge and assess complaints within a reasonable period and communicate the outcome or next step where appropriate. Complex matters may require additional time, external information, or coordination with institutions.
Possible outcomes include explanation, correction of process, apology for service failures, policy clarification, reassignment, training, referral, record correction, or a finding that no further action is warranted.
Escalation
Where a complaint cannot appropriately be resolved at the initial level, an escalation route should be available within the journal or publisher governance structure. The route should reflect the nature of the complaint and avoid conflicts of interest.
External bodies may have jurisdiction over particular legal, professional, institutional, ethical, or regulatory issues; use of the publisher complaint process does not remove those independent rights or responsibilities.
Journal Implementation and Version Control
This policy is publisher mandatory. Journals should publish a clear complaint contact route and may define reasonable response targets and escalation roles.
Material changes should be versioned and preserved.
Version Control
Version 1.0. This page is the canonical publisher-level text for the current version. Material revisions should be versioned and dated, while superseded versions remain identifiable so historical applicability can be determined.