Complaints and Appeals
Complaints and Appeals
Conference Proceedings in Science and Management (CPSM) handles complaints and appeals under the COPE guidance on complaints and appeals. Anyone may use this procedure: authors, reviewers, volume editors, conference organizers, and readers.
What This Procedure Covers
- appeals against a decision on a paper or on a conference proposal;
- the conduct of peer review for a paper or a volume;
- the conduct of a volume editor, reviewer, board member, the Editor-in-Chief, or the editorial office;
- the accuracy or integrity of a published paper; and
- the policies, charges, or practices of the series.
A complaint about a decision made inside a conference's own review should first go to that conference's volume editors. If it is not resolved there, or if it concerns the volume editors themselves, it comes to the editorial office. Errors and integrity concerns about a published paper can also be raised through the Corrections, Retractions, and Errata procedure.
How to Complain or Appeal
Write to info@shoramedits.com with a subject line that begins "Complaint:" or "Appeal:". Please include your name and contact details, the title and DOI or submission reference of the paper or volume, what happened, any evidence, and the outcome you are asking for. An appeal against a decision should explain why the decision was wrong, for example a reviewer's factual error or an undeclared conflict of interest. Disagreement with a reviewer's judgment alone is not usually grounds for reversal.
Anonymous complaints are investigated where they carry enough evidence, though we cannot report back to an anonymous complainant.
Who Decides
The Editor-in-Chief handles complaints and appeals in the first instance. An appeal is reviewed by someone who took no part in the original decision: where the Editor-in-Chief made that decision, or where the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher, the Chair of the Editorial Advisory Board handles it, with a second board member where needed. An appeal decision is final within the series.
Timelines
| Step | Time |
|---|---|
| Acknowledgment | Within 5 working days |
| First substantive reply, with an outcome or a timetable | Within 20 working days |
| Progress updates during a longer investigation | At least every 30 days |
Possible Outcomes
- a decision is confirmed, changed, or reversed;
- a paper is sent for further independent review;
- an erratum, correction, expression of concern, or retraction is published;
- a volume editor, reviewer, or board member is removed from a role;
- an institution or funder is told of established misconduct; or
- the complaint is dismissed.
Every outcome is given in writing, with reasons.
Confidentiality and Fair Treatment
A complainant's identity is shared with the people complained about only where the investigation cannot proceed otherwise, and only with the complainant's agreement. A complaint made in good faith never affects how the complainant's future papers or proposals are handled.
If You Remain Dissatisfied
Where research misconduct is alleged, the matter may also be taken to the research integrity office of the authors' institution or to the funder of the research, and CPSM will cooperate with any such inquiry. CPSM is not yet a member of COPE, so COPE cannot accept a complaint about the series. The series intends to apply for membership after its first volume is complete, and will post the date on the Announcements page.
