Dispute Resolution

Complaints, Appeals, and Editorial Integrity Policy

Collective Intelligence Perspectives is committed to fair, transparent, and accountable editorial processes. Complaints, appeals, and allegations concerning editorial conduct or publication integrity are considered seriously and handled in accordance with the journal’s Bylaws and, where applicable, relevant guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This policy applies to matters arising before or after publication and covers authors, reviewers, editors, members of the journal’s governing bodies, readers, and other persons affected by the journal’s activities.

Submitting a Complaint, Appeal, or Integrity Concern

Complaints, appeals, and concerns should be submitted in writing to:

office@ci-perspectives.org

The submission should include, where applicable:

  • The name and contact details of the person raising the matter

  • The title and submission number or DOI of the relevant manuscript or publication

  • A clear description of the concern or contested decision

  • Relevant supporting information or documentation

  • Any previous correspondence relating to the matter

  • The outcome or remedy being requested

Anonymous concerns may be considered where they contain sufficiently specific and credible information to permit an appropriate assessment. The journal will seek to protect the identity of complainants and whistleblowers to the extent reasonably possible, although complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is necessary to investigate the matter fairly or comply with legal obligations.

Submissions will normally be acknowledged within seven working days. The journal aims to provide an initial outcome or substantive progress update within 30 calendar days. More complex matters may require additional time, particularly where external advice or information from third parties is required.

Appeals against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:

  • A material procedural error occurred

  • A relevant conflict of interest affected the decision

  • The manuscript or the authors’ response was materially misunderstood

  • Significant information relevant to the decision was not considered

  • The decision was affected by conduct inconsistent with the journal’s published policies

An appeal should normally be submitted within 30 calendar days of notification of the editorial decision. It must state the grounds for the appeal and provide a reasoned explanation supported by relevant evidence.

A difference of scholarly opinion or general disagreement with reviewers’ assessments does not, by itself, constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal. Appeals are not intended to provide repeated rounds of review until a favourable decision is reached.

Appeals are ordinarily considered by the Editor-in-Chief, where appropriate in consultation with a Senior Editor who was not materially involved in the original decision. The journal may obtain an additional independent assessment if this is necessary to evaluate the appeal.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest or is directly involved in the contested matter, the ethical or procedural aspects of the appeal will be referred to the Editorial Ethics and Integrity Board.

An appeal may result in:

  • Confirmation of the original decision

  • Reconsideration by an editor who was not previously involved

  • Additional or renewed peer review

  • Modification or withdrawal of the original decision

  • Referral of ethical or procedural concerns for further investigation

Normally, only one appeal against an editorial decision will be considered. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated in writing and will include a brief explanation of the reasons for the decision.

Complaints about Editorial Conduct or Procedures

Complaints may concern, among other matters:

  • Unreasonable or unexplained delays

  • Failure to follow the journal’s published procedures

  • Inappropriate conduct by an editor, reviewer, or member of the journal team

  • Breaches of confidentiality

  • Undisclosed or inadequately managed conflicts of interest

  • Discrimination, harassment, abusive conduct, or unfair treatment

  • Misuse of privileged information obtained through peer review

  • A failure to respond appropriately to an integrity concern

  • Decisions concerning corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions

Complaints concerning ordinary editorial operations will initially be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or by another suitably independent Senior Editor.

A complaint will be referred to the Editorial Ethics and Integrity Board where:

  • The Editor-in-Chief is directly involved in or affected by the matter

  • A person ordinarily responsible for addressing the complaint has a relevant conflict of interest

  • The complaint concerns a serious alleged breach of editorial ethics or integrity

  • The matter cannot be resolved appropriately within the ordinary editorial structure

  • The Senior Editorial Board or the Board of Directors of GWS e.V. refers the matter to the Board

Editorial Ethics and Integrity Board

The Editorial Ethics and Integrity Board (EEIB) is an independent body established under the journal’s Bylaws to safeguard fairness, integrity, and due process in the journal’s editorial activities.

The EEIB consists of at least three members of GWS e.V. appointed by the Board of Directors of the Society. Its members do not simultaneously hold operational editorial roles within the journal.

The EEIB reviews the ethical and procedural aspects of matters referred to it. It does not ordinarily reassess the scholarly merit of a manuscript or replace the academic judgement of reviewers and editors. Where it identifies a material procedural or ethical deficiency, it may require or recommend that the submission or publication be assessed again by an editor or reviewer who was not previously involved.

The EEIB may:

  • Request relevant information from authors, reviewers, editors, or other parties

  • Invite affected persons to provide a written statement

  • Seek independent scholarly, professional, institutional, or legal advice

  • Recommend a new or additional editorial assessment

  • Require appropriate corrective or preventive measures

  • Refer possible research misconduct to the relevant institution, employer, funder, journal, or other competent body where appropriate

Decisions of the EEIB are made by simple majority and documented in writing. Its decisions are final in matters of editorial ethics, integrity, and procedural fairness, subject to the legal and statutory responsibilities of the Board of Directors of GWS e.V.

The Board of Directors of GWS e.V. retains final authority in legal, statutory, financial, and organisational matters.

Conflicts of Interest and Recusal

Any person involved in considering a complaint, appeal, or integrity concern must disclose actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest.

A person with a relevant conflict of interest will not participate in the assessment or decision. Where an EEIB member must recuse themselves and the remaining membership is insufficient to consider the case appropriately, the Board of Directors of GWS e.V. may appoint an independent temporary replacement for that case.

Fairness, Confidentiality, and Opportunity to Respond

Complaints, appeals, and investigations will be handled as confidentially as reasonably possible. Information will normally be shared only with persons whose involvement is necessary for the fair assessment or resolution of the matter.

No substantive finding will ordinarily be made against a person without informing them of the relevant concerns and giving them a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The journal will seek to treat all parties fairly and without retaliation. Raising a concern in good faith will not disadvantage an author, reviewer, editor, or other participant in future interactions with the journal.

All participants are expected to communicate respectfully. The journal may discontinue correspondence that is abusive, threatening, persistently repetitive, or unsupported by substantive new information, after providing an explanation for doing so.

Allegations of Research or Publication Misconduct

Concerns relating to plagiarism, fabricated or falsified information, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate authorship, duplicate publication, manipulated peer review, or other forms of research or publication misconduct may be raised at any time.

The journal will assess such allegations in accordance with relevant COPE guidance. The role of the journal is primarily to safeguard the integrity of the editorial process and the published scholarly record. Where an investigation of individual or institutional misconduct is required, the journal may refer the matter to the relevant institution, employer, funder, professional body, or other competent authority.

Where appropriate and legally permissible, the journal may exchange relevant information with other journals, publishers, or institutions involved in the matter.

Possible Outcomes and Corrections to the Scholarly Record

Depending on the nature and findings of a case, the journal may take measures including:

  • Rejecting or upholding a complaint or appeal

  • Reconsidering an editorial decision

  • Arranging additional independent review

  • Correcting an editorial or administrative error

  • Publishing a correction, clarification, editorial note, or expression of concern

  • Retracting or withdrawing published material

  • Amending internal procedures or published policies

  • Removing a reviewer or editor from involvement in a particular matter

  • Referring the matter to an institution or other competent authority

Any correction, expression of concern, or retraction will be clearly linked to the affected publication and will state the reason for the action to the extent permitted by confidentiality, privacy, and legal considerations.

Documentation

The journal will retain appropriate confidential records of complaints, appeals, integrity proceedings, responses, and outcomes. Significant cases may be reported in anonymised form to the journal’s governing bodies or included in its annual reporting, provided that individuals and confidential matters cannot reasonably be identified.