Complaints & conflict resolution

COMPLAINTS & CONFLICT RESOLUTION POLICY

1. Purpose, Philosophy, and Open Feedback Channels

  • 1.1. Constructive Stakeholder Feedback: The Journal of Management Info (JMI) views complaints not merely as disputes, but as a primary mechanism for stakeholders—specifically authors, reviewers, readers, and institutional bodies—to provide feedback for the continuous quality improvement of the journal.
  • 1.2. Prompt Communication Channels: JMI's Editorial Team is mandated to maintain a clearly highlighted, active editorial email address on the journal’s landing page. This inbox is monitored daily to guarantee that all queries and grievances are acknowledged and addressed within a short time.
  • 1.3. Direct Publisher Interface: For issues that cannot be resolved directly with the editorial office, or where the complainant is dissatisfied with the editor's response, Readers Insight Publisher provides an independent administrative escalation point via info@readersinsight.net.
  • SDG Alignment (SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): Establishing accessible, open feedback and complaint loops supports SDG Target 16.6 (developing effective, accountable, and transparent institutions). It subjects JMI's internal editorial machinery to public and academic accountability, building long-term institutional trust.

2. Scope of Complaints

This policy applies to grievances regarding JMI's operations, staff, or editorial boards, including but not limited to:

  • Ethical Misconduct Concerns: Allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or peer-review manipulation.
  • Editorial Performance and Process Delays: Unreasonable delays in manuscript processing, systemic communication failures, or perceived breaches of peer-review confidentiality.
  • Administrative and Financial Grievances: Disputes regarding Article Processing Charges (APCs), waiver eligibility, or indexing and digital delivery errors.
  • Editorial Judgments and Appeals: Academic disagreements with editorial desk rejections or post-review decisions (handled under JMI's specialized appeals procedure).

3. The Multi-Tiered Resolution and Independent Escalation Pathway (COPE Alignment)

To prevent conflicts of interest and ensure procedural fairness, JMI replaces the "final and terminal" authority of a single editor with a democratic, multi-tiered escalation pathway:

[Tier 1: Journal Internal] ──► [Tier 2: Publisher Level] ──► [Tier 3: External Resolution]

   Handling Editor / EIC         Readers Insight Publisher       Independent Ombudsperson /

(editorial & process review)   (info@readersinsight.net)     Editorial Advisory Board

  • 3.1. Tier 1: Journal-Level Internal Resolution
    • Complaints must first be submitted in writing to JMI's primary editorial contact.
    • The Editor-in-Chief (EIC), in consultation with the handling academic editor, will conduct an internal review of the editorial files, correspondence, and peer-review history to formulate a written resolution. If the complaint directly involves the EIC, they must recuse themselves, and the case is automatically routed to Tier 2.
  • 3.2. Tier 2: Publisher-Level Administrative Review
    • If the complainant is dissatisfied with the EIC's internal resolution, or if there is a conflict of interest at the editorial level, the case is escalated to the publisher, Readers Insight, at info@readersinsight.net.
    • An independent Publication Ethics Officer from Readers Insight, separated from JMI's active editorial team, will review the procedural and ethical compliance of the file.
  • 3.3. Tier 3: External Independent Resolution
    • In accordance with COPE Core Practices, if the complainant remains dissatisfied after publisher-level review, the dispute is escalated beyond the terminal authority of both the EIC and the publisher.
    • The file is referred to an independent Editorial Advisory Board composed of international management scholars, an external independent ombudsperson, or the publisher’s institutional ethics board for an impartial, binding decision. Unresolved ethical cases may also be referred to COPE for guidance if JMI is an active member or adheres to its standards.
  • SDG Alignment (SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions & SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities): A multi-tiered escalation pathway eliminates arbitrary decision-making. It ensures that authors from historically underrepresented or low-resource institutions have equal access to an independent, unbiased review, removing regional and institutional power imbalances.

4. Operational Timelines and Procedural Safeguards

  • 4.1. Rapid Acknowledgment: The JMI Editorial Team will formally acknowledge the receipt of any complaint within three (3) working days, confirming the assignee and outline of the investigation.
  • 4.2. Standard Investigation Window: JMI and Readers Insight expects editors to make their best efforts to resolve complaints as quickly as possible. A detailed, evidence-based preliminary decision or progress update will be delivered to the complainant within thirty (30) calendar days.
  • 4.3. Record Keeping: All complaints, correspondence, evidence, and final resolutions are securely recorded in JMI's internal, confidential Complaints Registry for a minimum of five (5) years to support institutional transparency.
  • SDG Alignment (SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth): Establishing strict processing timelines protects the professional time, emotional energy, and labor rights of academic authors and editors, preventing prolonged administrative stress and supporting sustainable, respectful academic workspaces.

5. Whistleblower Protections and Anonymous Complaints

  • 5.1. Strict Anonymity Protocols: JMI welcomes ethical alerts from whistleblowers. The identities of individuals who raise concerns regarding research integrity, plagiarism, or peer-review fraud will be kept strictly confidential and protected from retaliation.
  • 5.2. Investigating Anonymous Complaints: In alignment with COPE guidelines, JMI will investigate anonymous complaints with equal rigor, provided the complainant submits specific, verifiable evidence (such as comparative text blocks, statistical anomalies, or raw data discrepancies) that can be assessed objectively without requiring the complainant's identity.
  • SDG Alignment (SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): Protecting whistleblowers is critical for exposing systemic corruption and scientific misconduct. Providing safe, anonymous reporting channels secures the integrity of the published management record without putting the careers of junior researchers at risk.

6. Professional Conduct and Mutual Respect

  • 6.1. Standard of Professional Communication: JMI expects all parties involved in a dispute to communicate with courtesy, objectivity, and mutual respect.
  • 6.2. Curbing Harassment: Written submissions containing personal attacks, inflammatory language, threats, or harassment toward editors, reviewers, or publisher staff will not be tolerated and may result in the immediate termination of the dispute resolution process.
  • SDG Alignment (SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth): Enforcing standards of professional conduct and zero-tolerance for harassment protects the mental health, labor dignity, and safety of editorial and publishing staff, fostering an ethical and healthy academic workforce.