Complaints Policy

Al-Fateh Journal for Educational and Psychological Research is committed to handling complaints professionally, fairly, transparently, and confidentially in a manner that protects the rights of authors, reviewers, readers, and members of the Editorial Board while safeguarding editorial independence and the integrity of scholarly publishing.

This policy governs the submission, examination, investigation, and resolution of complaints relating to manuscript submission, peer review, editorial procedures, publication ethics, confidentiality, published content, and compliance with the journal’s policies.

First: Scope of Complaints

The journal considers complaints concerning:

  1. Unjustified delays in editorial screening, peer review, or the issuance of an editorial decision.
  2. A clear procedural failure in manuscript handling or the management of the peer-review process.
  3. A breach of the confidentiality of a manuscript, peer-review report, or the personal data of authors or reviewers.
  4. Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, simultaneous submission, fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data.
  5. A substantial error or unreliable information in a published article.
  6. An undisclosed conflict of interest involving an author, reviewer, or editor.
  7. Unprofessional or inappropriate conduct in correspondence, peer-review reports, or editorial procedures.
  8. Misuse of authors’ or reviewers’ data or of unpublished content.
  9. A possible violation of the journal’s published editorial or ethical policies.

An author’s dissatisfaction with a rejection decision or with reviewers’ comments does not, by itself, constitute a complaint unless it is based on a specific procedural failure, an ethical violation, or clear evidence that the journal’s policy was not properly applied. Scientific objections to an editorial decision are handled under the journal’s Appeals Policy.

Second: Submission of a Complaint

Complaints must be submitted through the journal’s online system or the official email address published on the Contact Us page.

A complaint should include, as far as possible:

  1. The complainant’s name, role, and official contact information.
  2. The manuscript title and identification number in the journal’s system, or the title, link, or DOI of the published article concerned.
  3. A clear and specific description of the matter giving rise to the complaint.
  4. The date on which the matter occurred or was discovered.
  5. Any supporting evidence, documents, or correspondence.
  6. A statement of the action or remedy requested by the complainant.

Messages sent through messaging applications or social media platforms are not regarded as formal complaints and must be resubmitted through the official channels for registration and follow-up.

Third: Anonymous Complaints

The journal may consider an anonymous complaint when it contains specific information and clear, verifiable evidence of serious scientific or ethical misconduct.

An investigation may not be possible when an anonymous complaint lacks sufficient information or provides no means of requesting clarification. A complaint shall not be dismissed solely because the complainant has not disclosed their identity, provided that the evidence submitted is credible and capable of examination.

Fourth: Registration and Initial Assessment

The journal acknowledges receipt of a complaint within no more than five working days and may provide the complainant with a reference number for follow-up.

Each complaint undergoes an initial assessment to determine:

  1. Whether it falls within the journal’s responsibility.
  2. Whether the matter and related facts are clearly stated.
  3. Whether sufficient information and evidence are available for examination.
  4. Whether the same matter has previously been resolved without the submission of new evidence or information.
  5. Whether the complaint contains personal abuse, threats, or unverifiable general accusations.

The journal may request additional information or documentation before beginning an investigation. When a complaint falls outside the journal’s responsibility, the complainant shall be informed and may, where possible, be directed to the appropriate authority.

Fifth: Independence and Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest

A complaint shall be examined by an individual or committee with no direct involvement in the matter concerned. Any editor or Editorial Board member with a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from handling the complaint.

When a complaint concerns a member of the Editorial Board, it shall be referred to the Editor-in-Chief or to an independent member who was not involved in the matter.

When a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it shall be referred to the publisher or to an independent committee authorized by the University of Diyala or the College of Basic Education. The Editor-in-Chief shall not participate in the investigation or decision.

A complainant is not entitled to demand disclosure of reviewers’ identities or access to confidential information protected by the journal’s peer-review policy.

Sixth: Examination and Investigation

Depending on the nature of the complaint, the journal may take one or more of the following steps:

  1. Review manuscript-submission records, peer-review reports, editorial decisions, and related correspondence.
  2. Request explanations or responses from authors, reviewers, editors, or other relevant parties.
  3. Consult an independent member or specialist expert on the scientific or ethical aspects of the complaint.
  4. Compare the allegations with the journal’s policies and the available documents and evidence.
  5. Contact the author’s institution or another competent authority when an institutional investigation is required.
  6. Temporarily suspend the processing or publication of a manuscript when serious concerns require investigation before the process can continue.
  7. Maintain the confidentiality of the investigation and avoid publicizing allegations before they have been properly examined.

The journal provides the relevant parties with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations before a decision is made, unless a valid legal or ethical reason prevents this.

Seventh: Outcomes of the Complaint Review

After completing the review, the journal may:

  1. Dismiss the complaint when it is unsubstantiated or insufficiently supported by evidence.
  2. Provide clarification regarding the editorial procedure or policy applied.
  3. Correct a procedural failure or repeat a particular stage of manuscript handling or peer review.
  4. Assign a different editor or reviewer when a conflict of interest or lack of impartiality is established.
  5. Request an additional scientific assessment by an independent expert.
  6. Correct information in the manuscript or on the journal’s website.
  7. Publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice in accordance with the journal’s policy on published content.
  8. Reject a manuscript or discontinue its publication process when misconduct is established before publication.
  9. Refer the matter to the relevant academic institution or competent authority when serious or repeated misconduct is identified.
  10. Take appropriate administrative action when a participant in the editorial process is found to have violated the journal’s policies.

Eighth: Timeframe for Handling Complaints

The journal seeks to complete the initial assessment of a complaint within fifteen working days and to issue a final response within thirty working days from the date on which all information required for the review has been received.

When a complaint is complex or requires specialist advice or communication with an external institution, the review period may be extended. In such cases, the complainant shall be informed of the reason for the delay and the stage reached in the process, with periodic updates provided whenever possible.

The final response shall be formal and shall state the outcome of the review and the action taken, within the limits permitted by confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

Ninth: Request for Reconsideration

The complainant may request reconsideration of the outcome once, within fifteen working days of being notified of the decision, provided that the request is based on:

  1. A substantial procedural failure in the handling of the complaint.
  2. New evidence that was not available during the original investigation.
  3. A clear inconsistency between the outcome and the journal’s published policies.

Whenever possible, the reconsideration request shall be referred to an individual or committee that was not involved in the original decision. Repetition of the same arguments without new evidence or justification shall not result in reopening the investigation.

Tenth: Confidentiality and Data Protection

The journal treats complaints, correspondence, and related documents as confidential. Access is restricted to individuals authorized to examine the complaint or take action in relation to it.

Information submitted shall be used solely for investigating the complaint and protecting the integrity of the editorial process and scholarly record. The minimum necessary information may be disclosed to an institution or competent authority when required by the nature of the investigation.

The journal retains complaint records and related decisions for as long as necessary for follow-up, documentation, and procedural improvement.

Eleventh: Protection of Complainants

Submitting a complaint in good faith shall not result in disadvantage, retaliation, or improper influence on the complainant’s current or future manuscripts or interactions with the journal.

The journal shall not take action against a person who provides accurate information or raises legitimate concerns, even when the review does not ultimately establish misconduct.

Twelfth: Malicious or Abusive Complaints

The journal may close a complaint when it is found to be:

  1. Malicious or submitted for the purpose of harassment or reputational harm.
  2. Containing threats or personally abusive language.
  3. Based on general allegations without verifiable information.
  4. Repeating a complaint that has already been resolved without presenting new evidence.
  5. Intended to pressure the journal or improperly influence an editorial decision.

Closing an abusive complaint does not prevent the journal from examining any credible evidence of possible scientific or ethical misconduct contained within it.

Thirteenth: Improvement of Journal Procedures

The Editorial Board reviews recurring complaints and their outcomes in order to improve submission, peer-review, and editorial procedures, enhance service quality, reduce delays, and strengthen integrity, transparency, and confidence in the journal’s policies.