1. Introduction

Pervasive Justice is committed to providing a high-quality, transparent, and fair publication process for authors, reviewers, and readers. We understand that concerns or disagreements may occasionally arise. This policy outlines the procedures for submitting and handling complaints related to the journal's processes, policies, or staff conduct, as well as for authors wishing to appeal editorial decisions on their manuscripts. Pervasive Justice is dedicated to addressing all complaints and appeals constructively, impartially, and in a timely manner, adhering to the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Description

This policy distinguishes between "complaints" and "appeals":

• Complaint: An expression of dissatisfaction by any individual or group regarding any aspect of Pervasive Justice's policies, procedures, editorial conduct, actions of its staff or editorial board, or its published content (excluding concerns about the scientific validity of a rejected manuscript, which would typically be an appeal). Complaints may include, but are not limited to:

  • Undue delays in manuscript handling or publication.

  • The conduct of Jurnal Hukum Inkracht editors or staff.

  • Problems with journal systems or processes.

  • Concerns about adherence to stated journal policies (excluding appeals against editorial decisions).

  • Allegations concerning the integrity or conduct of the journal itself.

• Appeal: A formal request from an author (or authors) for Jurnal Hukum Inkracht to reconsider an editorial decision made on their submitted manuscript, typically in the case of a rejection.

This policy provides a clear pathway for raising such issues. Concerns related to research or publication misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) are handled under Pervasive Justice's "Policy on Allegations of Misconduct," although complaints may arise regarding how such an allegation was handled.

3. Policy

• Commitment to Fair Process: Pervasive Justice is committed to a fair, transparent, and consistent process for investigating and resolving all complaints and appeals.

• Confidentiality: All complaints and appeals will be handled with due confidentiality. Information will only be shared with those directly involved in the investigation and resolution process. The identities of complainants or appellants will be protected whenever possible and appropriate.

• Timeliness: Pervasive Justice will acknowledge receipt of all complaints and appeals promptly (typically within 5-7 working days). We aim to investigate and resolve issues within a reasonable timeframe and will keep the complainant or appellant informed of any significant delays.

• Constructive Engagement: Our approach to complaints and appeals is constructive. We view them as opportunities to address concerns and, where appropriate, improve the journal's policies, procedures, and overall service to the scholarly community.

• No Retaliation: Pervasive Justice guarantees that no individual will be subject to adverse action or retaliation as a result of lodging a complaint or appeal in good faith.

• Grounds for Appeal: Appeals against editorial decisions will be considered primarily if an author can provide clear evidence of:

  • A significant misunderstanding or factual error on the part of the reviewers or editors that directly influenced the decision.

  • New, substantive evidence or data that was not available at the time of the original review and which directly addresses the key concerns raised, potentially altering the manuscript's assessment.

  • A demonstrably flawed or biased peer review process. Appeals based solely on a differing scientific opinion from that of the reviewers or editors will generally not be successful.

• Frivolous or Vexatious Submissions: Jurnal Hukum Inkracht reserves the right to dismiss complaints or appeals that are deemed to be without merit, vexatious, repetitive, or outside the scope of this policy.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialize the Policies

A. Procedure for Handling Complaints (Concerning journal policies, procedures, editorial conduct, or staff)

• Submission of a Complaint:

  • Complaints should be made in writing and directed to the Editor-in-Chief of Pervasive Justice. Contact information is available on the journal's website.

  • The complaint should clearly articulate the issue(s), including specific details such as dates, names of individuals involved (if relevant), manuscript ID (if applicable), and any supporting documentation or evidence.

• Acknowledgement:

  • The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editorial office representative will acknowledge receipt of the complaint.

• Investigation:

  • The Editor-in-Chief will investigate the complaint thoroughly, which may involve reviewing correspondence, consulting with relevant editorial board members, staff, or other parties involved.

  • The complainant may be contacted for further information or clarification. The investigation will be conducted impartially.

• Resolution and Response:

  • After completing the investigation, the Editor-in-Chief will provide a written response to the complainant, summarizing the findings and outlining any actions taken or proposed to address the complaint.

  • Possible outcomes may include an explanation, apology, or a commitment to review or revise relevant journal policies or procedures. If the complaint is found to be unsubstantiated, this will also be communicated.

• Escalation:

  • If the complainant is not satisfied with the resolution provided by the Editor-in-Chief, they may request further review by the Publisher.

  • Pervasive Justice may also consider guidance from COPE for complex or unresolved complaints concerning publication ethics.

B. Procedure for Handling Appeals (Against editorial decisions on manuscripts)

• Submission of an Appeal:

  • Authors wishing to appeal an editorial decision on their manuscript must submit the appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief.

  • The appeal must be submitted by the corresponding author within 30 days of receiving the editorial decision.

  • The appeal letter must clearly state the grounds for the appeal and provide a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal to the editor's and reviewers' comments that formed the basis of the decision. It should highlight any perceived errors, misunderstandings, or evidence of a flawed process.

  • A revised manuscript should not be submitted with the appeal unless the original decision letter explicitly invited a resubmission subject to appeal.

• Assessment of the Appeal:

  • The Editor-in-Chief will assess the appeal to determine if it meets the valid grounds for an appeal as outlined in Section 3 of this policy.

  • If the appeal is based solely on disagreement with the scientific judgment, it may be dismissed at this stage.

• Appeal Investigation:

  • If the appeal is deemed to have merit, the Editor-in-Chief will reconsider the manuscript, which may involve:

    • Re-evaluating the original manuscript, the peer reviewers' reports, and the authors' rebuttal.

    • Seeking further advice from the original handling editor or reviewers, if appropriate and with their anonymity maintained.

    • Consulting with another member of the Jurnal Hukum Inkracht Editorial Board or an independent external expert who was not involved in the original decision.

• Decision on Appeal:

  • The Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision on the appeal, and this decision is binding.

  • The corresponding author will be informed of the outcome in writing, with a clear explanation for the decision.

  • Pervasive Justice typically considers only one appeal per manuscript.

• Possible Outcomes of an Appeal:

  • The original editorial decision is upheld.

  • The manuscript is invited for a new round of peer review (potentially with new reviewers).

  • The original decision is overturned, and the manuscript proceeds in the editorial workflow (e.g., acceptance, or acceptance pending minor revisions). This is rare and typically follows evidence of a significant flaw in the original review process.

  • The manuscript remains rejected, but for different or clarified reasons.