Complaints and Appeals Policy

The Journal of Child and Youth Psychology (JCYP) is committed to handling concerns, complaints, and appeals from authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders in a fair, impartial, and transparent manner.

1. Scope of the Policy

This policy covers two principal types of submission:

• Appeal against an editorial decision: A request to reconsider a rejection, revision decision, or other editorial decision on substantive scientific or procedural grounds.
• Complaint: A concern regarding journal procedures, editors, reviewers, staff, policies, or published content involving procedural, ethical, behavioural, or process-related issues.

2. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a significant scientific or procedural error has occurred.

An appeal may be considered where, for example:

• A material aspect of the manuscript appears to have been misunderstood,
• Important scientific information relevant to the decision appears to have been overlooked,
• There are specific grounds to believe that a significant procedural error occurred during peer review or editorial handling,
• The decision appears inconsistent with the journal's published policies,
• There is specific information suggesting a relevant conflict of interest or problem of impartiality.

3. Submitting an Appeal

Authors are encouraged to submit appeals within 30 days of notification of the editorial decision.

Appeals may be sent to editor@cgpdergisi.com.

An appeal should, where possible, include:

• Manuscript title and submission number,
• Date and nature of the decision being appealed,
• Clear and specific grounds for the appeal,
• Identification of any reviewer or editorial statement believed to contain a significant error,
• Relevant scholarly references or documentation where necessary.

4. Evaluation of Appeals

Appeals should, whenever possible, be considered by an editor who has no relevant conflict of interest and is able to assess the case independently.

Where appropriate, previous reviewer reports may be reconsidered, another editor may be consulted, or the manuscript may be sent to an additional independent reviewer.

Acceptance of an appeal for consideration does not imply acceptance of the manuscript. An appeal may result in reopening the evaluation process or another appropriate editorial action.

5. Outcome of an Appeal

Following review of an appeal, the journal may decide to:

• Maintain the original editorial decision,
• Reconsider the original decision,
• Send the manuscript for additional peer review,
• Arrange a new evaluation by another editor.

Normally, one formal appeal will be considered for the same editorial decision. Unless substantial new evidence emerges, the decision following the appeal may be regarded as final within the journal's editorial process.

6. Scope of Complaints

Complaints may concern issues including, but not limited to:

• Significant irregularities or inconsistencies in editorial procedures,
• Unusual or unexplained editorial delays,
• Ethical concerns regarding reviewer or editor conduct,
• Breaches of confidentiality,
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest,
• Discriminatory, personal, or otherwise inappropriate review language,
• Possible ethical or research-integrity concerns involving published content,
• Alleged failure to follow the journal's published policies,
• Other serious concerns regarding journal staff or management processes.

7. Submitting a Complaint

Complaints should preferably be submitted in writing with sufficient specific information to editor@cgpdergisi.com.

A complaint should, where possible, include:

• The subject of the complaint,
• Relevant manuscript or process information,
• A concise description of the matter,
• Relevant dates or correspondence,
• Supporting information or documentation where available.

Anonymous reports may be considered where they contain sufficient and verifiable information. However, anonymity may limit the journal's ability to seek clarification or communicate the outcome.

8. Impartial Handling of Complaints

Where a complaint directly concerns an editor, reviewer, staff member, or publisher, that individual should not make the final determination regarding the complaint.

9. Allegations of Research or Publication Misconduct

Concerns involving plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, ethics approval, manipulation of peer review, or other forms of research misconduct are not handled merely as general service complaints.

Such cases are evaluated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and relevant principles of research integrity.

The journal may request explanations or documentation from authors or other relevant parties and, where necessary, communicate with research institutions, ethics committees, or other competent bodies.

10. Complaints Concerning Published Content

Reports of scientific errors, ethical concerns, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or research-integrity issues involving published articles may be raised after publication.

Where warranted, post-publication action may include correction, clarification, expression of concern, retraction, or another appropriate measure.

11. Confidentiality

Personal information, unpublished material, reviewer identities, and other confidential information are disclosed only to the extent necessary to investigate a complaint or appeal.

The confidentiality of double-blind peer review is not automatically waived merely because a complaint or appeal has been submitted.

12. Good-Faith Reports and Protection from Retaliation

Deliberately false statements, personal attacks, threats, harassment, or abuse of the complaints process are not acceptable.

13. Timeframes

The journal aims to address complaints and appeals as promptly as reasonably possible.

Receipt of a submission should normally be acknowledged within 7 days, and standard complaints or appeals should normally be resolved within approximately 30 days.

Cases involving research-integrity investigations, institutional correspondence, additional peer review, or extensive documentation may require more time. In such cases, the journal aims to provide appropriate updates to the complainant or appellant.

14. Record Keeping

Significant correspondence, assessments, and decisions relating to complaints and appeals are securely retained for quality assurance, research integrity, and any necessary future review.

The confidentiality of such records continues after the matter has been concluded.

15. Process Improvement

Complaints and appeals may also be used to identify opportunities for improvement in journal procedures rather than solely to resolve individual cases.

Where recurring or systemic concerns are identified, the journal may review its policies, workflows, peer-review practices, or editorial responsibilities.

16. Core Principle