Complaints & Appeals Policy

Complaints and appeals are evaluated according to their substance rather than the status, seniority, nationality, institutional affiliation, financial resources, or professional standing of the person submitting them. ALFI seeks to provide a reasonable opportunity for relevant parties to explain their position and to submit supporting information where necessary.

Individuals directly involved in the matter or possessing a relevant competing interest must not control its investigation or final determination. Where recusal is required, responsibility should be transferred to another suitably qualified and independent individual.

ALFI does not permit retaliation against a person solely because they submitted a complaint, appeal, ethical concern, or request for clarification in good faith. Submission of a legitimate concern must not be used as a reason to disadvantage an author, reviewer, reader, editor, research participant, or other complainant in subsequent editorial interactions.

A complaint should be submitted through the journal's official contact channel and should clearly identify the matter being raised. Where the concern relates to a manuscript or article, the complainant should provide the manuscript title, article title, manuscript identification number, DOI, or other information sufficient to identify the relevant record.

The complaint should describe the concern objectively, identify the relevant facts, explain the requested resolution where appropriate, and include supporting evidence or documentation reasonably available to the complainant. Unsupported accusations, speculation presented as fact, abusive communications, or intentionally misleading allegations may not provide a sufficient basis for formal investigation.

ALFI distinguishes between a credible concern and a proven allegation. Receipt of a complaint does not establish that misconduct occurred. Conclusions will be based on available evidence, relevant policies, responses from affected parties where appropriate, and the journal's responsibility to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Upon receipt, a complaint will be assessed to determine its nature, relevance, seriousness, supporting evidence, and the appropriate person or process for handling it. ALFI aims to acknowledge substantive complaints within a reasonable period and, where practicable, within approximately seven working days.

Complex matters involving publication misconduct, institutional investigation, multiple parties, legal questions, or requests for original research data may require substantially more time. The journal will not compromise the quality or fairness of an investigation solely to produce a rapid outcome.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a material factual error, substantial misunderstanding, significant procedural irregularity, relevant undisclosed conflict of interest, or demonstrable misapplication of journal policy materially affected the decision.

An appeal is not a routine second round of peer review and does not guarantee that the manuscript will be reconsidered, sent to new reviewers, or accepted for publication. The burden is on the appealing author to explain specifically why reconsideration is justified.

An author's disagreement with reviewer criticism, disappointment with rejection, belief that the manuscript is valuable, preference for another interpretation of the evidence, or desire for publication in ALFI does not by itself constitute grounds for an appeal. Appeals must identify a substantive reason why the integrity or correctness of the original decision should be reconsidered.

Appeals should normally be submitted by the corresponding author through the journal's official contact channel and should identify the manuscript, editorial decision being challenged, grounds for appeal, and supporting evidence. The author should address the specific issue rather than resubmit the manuscript with general arguments for publication.

Appeals should be submitted promptly after the relevant editorial decision. Excessive delay may make reconsideration impracticable, particularly if the editorial record is no longer current or the manuscript has subsequently been submitted or published elsewhere.

Where reasonably possible, an appeal should be considered by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision and who has no relevant competing interest. The reviewing editor may examine the manuscript, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, author response, applicable journal policies, and any new information specifically relevant to the appeal.

Additional external review may be sought when necessary, but a new peer-review round is not automatically required. The appeal reviewer may uphold the original decision, reopen editorial consideration, seek additional expert advice, or determine another proportionate course of action.

ALFI normally permits one formal appeal of a specific editorial decision. Repeated submissions of substantially the same arguments after an appeal has been determined will not ordinarily reopen the matter unless significant new evidence emerges that could not reasonably have been provided earlier.

Authors may raise concerns about a review when there is a credible basis to believe that the reviewer acted unprofessionally, breached confidentiality, disclosed a relevant unmanaged conflict, requested inappropriate citations, used discriminatory or abusive language, misunderstood a material aspect of the manuscript in a way relevant to the decision, or otherwise failed to comply with the journal's reviewer standards.

Critical, negative, or demanding reviewer comments are not inherently inappropriate. Editors distinguish between legitimate scholarly criticism and conduct that undermines the fairness, professionalism, confidentiality, or independence of peer review.

A complaint concerning a handling editor should not be decided solely by the editor who is the subject of the complaint. The matter should be referred to the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriate senior editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

The editor concerned may be invited to provide relevant information or an explanation but should not exercise control over the final assessment of the complaint.

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the Editor-in-Chief must not determine the outcome of the complaint. The matter should be assigned to an appropriately qualified and independent senior Editorial Board member, editorial committee, or other person designated to handle the matter who has no relevant competing interest.

The publisher may assist in handling complaints involving journal governance, administrative conduct, conflicts affecting the Editor-in-Chief, technical publishing matters, legal concerns, or other issues where independent escalation is required.

Publisher involvement must not be used to override legitimate scholarly editorial judgment regarding the scientific merit of a manuscript. Scholarly decisions remain the responsibility of appropriately independent editorial experts.

Complaints alleging research or publication misconduct may require a formal integrity assessment rather than ordinary administrative complaint handling. ALFI may request explanations, original data, ethical approvals, authorship information, reviewer records, documentation, or other relevant evidence.

Where a journal is not competent to establish disputed facts independently, the matter may be referred to an author's institution, research-integrity office, ethics committee, funder, employer, regulatory authority, or another competent body for investigation.

Concerns about published content are assessed according to their potential effect on the reliability, ethics, legality, interpretation, or integrity of the scholarly record. The journal will not remove, modify, correct, or retract a publication solely because a complainant disagrees with its conclusions.

Where evidence supports post-publication action, ALFI may publish a correction, clarification, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other notice in accordance with its Corrections & Retractions Policy.

Complaint and appeal information is shared only with persons reasonably necessary to assess or resolve the matter, subject to legal, ethical, and procedural requirements. Confidential reviewer identities must remain protected under the journal's double-anonymous peer-review model unless disclosure is required by law or another overriding legitimate process.

Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where investigation requires communication with affected individuals, institutions, ethics committees, funders, legal authorities, or other competent bodies.

ALFI may consider anonymous concerns when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information to permit meaningful assessment. However, anonymity may limit the journal's ability to request clarification, verify evidence, communicate an outcome, or conduct a complete investigation.

ALFI welcomes good-faith criticism and legitimate ethical concerns. However, the complaints process must not be used to harass authors, reviewers, editors, competitors, institutions, or research participants; to pressure the journal into accepting a manuscript; or to repeatedly pursue allegations already reasonably assessed without presenting significant new evidence.

Abusive language does not invalidate an otherwise credible integrity concern, but ALFI may require future communication to remain professional and focused on relevant evidence.

Depending on the circumstances, resolution may include an explanation of the journal's decision, confirmation that procedure was followed appropriately, correction of an administrative error, reassignment of an editor or reviewer, additional review, reconsideration of an editorial decision, modification of internal procedures, correction of published content, formal publication notice, referral to another institution, or another proportionate action.

Not every complaint will result in the remedy requested by the complainant. The appropriate outcome is determined according to available evidence, applicable policy, editorial independence, and the journal's responsibility to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

ALFI is responsible for its editorial decisions and published scholarly record, but it does not possess the investigative powers of an employer, university, ethics committee, court, regulatory authority, research-integrity office, or law-enforcement body. Where resolution depends on evidence or authority outside the journal's competence, the matter may be referred to an appropriate external institution.

Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Industry (ALFI) is affiliated with Yayasan Kalidaka Cendikia Nusantara and formally published by WISE Pendidikan Indonesia. The publisher may support independent escalation and governance-related complaint handling where necessary but does not replace the scholarly authority of independent editors in determining the academic merits of manuscripts.

This Complaints & Appeals Policy should be read together with ALFI's Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest & Competing Interests Policy, Authorship & Contributorship Policy, Corrections & Retractions Policy, Similarity & Plagiarism Policy, and other applicable editorial policies.