Complaints and appeals are important mechanisms for maintaining confidence in academic publishing. They provide opportunities to identify material factual errors, review possible procedural irregularities, address concerns involving professional responsibilities, and ensure that editorial decisions remain consistent with the journal's scholarly and ethical standards.

CPRT distinguishes between an appeal against an editorial decision, a complaint concerning editorial procedures or conduct, and an allegation involving publication ethics. These matters may require different forms of assessment, and the journal will determine the appropriate procedure according to the nature and substance of the concern.

All complaints and appeals should be made in good faith and supported by sufficient information to permit meaningful assessment. CPRT seeks to handle such matters impartially, protect legitimate confidentiality interests, provide appropriate opportunities for response, and communicate outcomes through its established editorial procedures.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was affected by a material factual error, substantive misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or improperly managed competing interest may submit a formal written appeal. The purpose of an appeal is to determine whether the original decision warrants reconsideration under the journal's scholarly and editorial standards.

An appeal may concern a decision issued during initial editorial screening or following external peer review. An author should identify the specific basis for reconsideration and explain why the alleged problem may have materially affected the editorial outcome.

Grounds for Appeal

Grounds that may justify consideration of an appeal include:

• Material factual error: The editorial decision relies on demonstrably incorrect information concerning the manuscript, its sources, methods, or scholarly content.
• Substantive misunderstanding: A significant element of the research argument, methodology, or evidence was materially misunderstood in a manner that may have affected the decision.
• Procedural irregularity: An identifiable departure from the journal's established editorial or peer-review procedures materially affected the assessment.
• Competing interests: A relevant conflict of interest involving an editor or reviewer was not appropriately disclosed or managed.
• Evidence of inappropriate bias: Credible information indicates that the assessment may have been influenced by improper personal, institutional, ideological, or other considerations unrelated to scholarly merit.
• Other material concerns: A substantiated issue raises reasonable doubts about the fairness or reliability of the editorial decision-making process.

A difference of scholarly opinion does not automatically establish grounds for appeal. Philosophical disagreement, a reviewer's preference for an alternative theoretical framework, or dissatisfaction with a rejection decision must be accompanied by a substantive explanation of the alleged error or irregularity.

Appeals are intended to address possible deficiencies in the original assessment. They should not be used solely as an opportunity to submit a substantially new manuscript or request repeated evaluation without a relevant basis for reconsideration.

Submission of an Appeal

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the CPRT Editorial Office. The correspondence should clearly identify the manuscript and the editorial decision being challenged.

A formal appeal should include:

• The manuscript title and submission reference, where available.
• The date and nature of the editorial decision under appeal.
• A clear statement identifying the specific grounds for reconsideration.
• A reasoned explanation of any relevant factual, procedural, or scholarly concerns.
• A substantive response to the relevant reviewer comments, where applicable.
• Supporting documentation, references, or other evidence that may assist the appeal assessment.

Appeal Review Process

Upon receiving an appeal, the editorial office conducts a preliminary assessment of whether the request identifies sufficient grounds for formal reconsideration. The appeal should be assigned to an editor who can evaluate the matter independently.

The review process may involve:

1. Registration and preliminary examination. The editorial office records the appeal and examines the manuscript history, original decision, and supporting explanation.
2. Independent assignment. The appeal is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately qualified editor who is not affected by a relevant conflict of interest. Where the Editor-in-Chief was materially involved in the contested decision, an independent editorial arrangement should be established.
3. Assessment of the grounds for appeal. The responsible editor evaluates whether the identified concerns reveal a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or another basis warranting reconsideration.
4. Further consultation where appropriate. Additional independent reviewers or qualified editorial advisers may be consulted if specialist expertise or further scholarly evaluation is necessary.
5. Editorial determination. The responsible editor determines whether the original decision should be upheld, the manuscript should receive further assessment, or another appropriate procedural correction is required.
6. Communication of the outcome. The editorial office communicates the appeal decision to the author in writing, providing an appropriate explanation of the determination.

Appeals should be assessed independently of the original review process. Original reviewers are not ordinarily involved in deciding an appeal, although clarification of a particular review comment or specialist advice may be requested where necessary. Such consultation does not replace independent editorial consideration.

If the appeal identifies a material flaw in the original assessment, the manuscript may be reconsidered or referred for additional independent review. Reconsideration does not guarantee acceptance, and any subsequent scholarly evaluation must follow the applicable editorial standards.

The decision following an appeal is ordinarily final within the journal's internal editorial appeal procedure. Repeated requests based on substantially the same arguments will not normally be reconsidered unless significant new evidence or a material procedural issue becomes available.

The conclusion of an internal appeal does not prevent the journal from examining a separate, credible allegation of research misconduct, serious procedural wrongdoing, or another matter that requires attention under its publication-ethics policies.

Complaints Regarding Editorial Process

CPRT accepts complaints concerning the administration, fairness, professionalism, and ethical conduct of its editorial and peer-review processes. Such complaints may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, or other individuals who have a legitimate concern relating to the journal's activities.

Complaints may concern:

• Editorial delays: Unexplained or unreasonable delays in manuscript screening, peer review, editorial communication, or publication administration.
• Procedural inconsistency: A material departure from the journal's published editorial or peer-review procedures.
• Alleged bias or discrimination: Concerns that an author, reviewer, or other participant was treated unfairly for reasons unrelated to academic merit or legitimate editorial requirements.
• Competing interests: Failure to disclose or appropriately manage a relevant personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationship.
• Unprofessional conduct: Inappropriate communication, harassment, intimidation, discriminatory treatment, or other conduct inconsistent with professional editorial responsibilities.
• Confidentiality breaches: Unauthorised disclosure or misuse of unpublished manuscripts, confidential reviewer information, or private editorial correspondence.
• Inappropriate reviewer demands: Concerns involving coercive citation requests, unreasonable reviewer conduct, or attempts to influence the scholarly evaluation improperly.
• Other administrative concerns: Issues involving journal procedures, communication, or publication services that materially affect an individual's participation in the editorial process.

Routine requests for manuscript-status information, account assistance, or clarification of editorial correspondence may be handled as ordinary administrative enquiries. A formal complaint procedure is appropriate where an identifiable concern regarding fairness, conduct, or procedural accountability requires examination.

Submission of an Editorial Complaint

Formal complaints should be submitted in writing and provide sufficient information for the editorial office to identify and assess the matter. A complaint should ordinarily include:

• The complainant's name and contact information, where disclosure is appropriate.
• The relevant manuscript, article, editorial correspondence, or publication activity.
• A clear account of the event, procedure, or conduct giving rise to the complaint.
• Relevant dates and supporting materials, where available.
• An explanation of the concern and, where appropriate, the outcome or remedy being requested.

CPRT may seek clarification or additional supporting information before determining whether a complaint warrants further investigation. Complaints containing serious but incomplete allegations should be assessed according to the available evidence rather than dismissed solely because every relevant detail is not initially available.

Investigation of Complaints

Editorial complaints are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor with sufficient independence to examine the matter impartially.

Depending on the circumstances, the review may involve:

1. Preliminary assessment. The editorial office identifies the subject of the complaint and determines whether it concerns editorial procedure, professional conduct, research ethics, or another matter.
2. Appointment of an impartial reviewer. The matter is assigned to an editor or other appropriate person who does not have a relevant competing interest.
3. Examination of available information. Relevant editorial records, correspondence, procedures, and supporting evidence are reviewed as necessary.
4. Opportunity for response. Individuals whose conduct or decisions are materially questioned should ordinarily have an appropriate opportunity to provide an explanation.
5. Determination and remedial action. The responsible reviewer determines whether the complaint is supported and whether clarification, procedural correction, reassignment, further investigation, or another appropriate action is necessary.
6. Communication of the outcome. The editorial office informs the complainant of the determination to the extent permitted by relevant confidentiality and privacy obligations.

An investigation may conclude that the complaint is substantiated, partly substantiated, not substantiated, or cannot be resolved on the available evidence. The outcome should reflect the information actually established through the review.

Complaints Involving the Editor-in-Chief

Where a complaint concerns the conduct, independence, or editorial decision-making of the Editor-in-Chief, the Editor-in-Chief must not exercise sole control over the investigation or determination of the complaint.

The matter should be referred to an appropriately independent senior member of the Editorial Board or, where necessary, to the Publisher for coordination of an impartial review arrangement. Independent scholarly or ethical advice may be obtained where the circumstances justify additional expertise.

The Publisher's involvement in arranging procedural review does not confer authority to override independent academic judgement on individual manuscripts for commercial or institutional reasons. Where a complaint concerns the Publisher or another participant in the proposed review arrangement, the journal should identify an alternative reviewer who can examine the matter without a relevant conflict.

Appropriate remedial measures may include correction of an administrative error, clarification of the journal's procedures, reassignment of editorial responsibility, further independent assessment, or another action proportionate to the concern established.

Complaints Related to Publication Ethics

Complaints or allegations concerning research integrity, publication misconduct, or the reliability of the scholarly record are examined under the journal's applicable publication-ethics procedures. Such matters may concern submitted manuscripts, editorial activities, peer-review conduct, or already published research.

Matters that may require ethical assessment include:

• Plagiarism: Unacknowledged appropriation of another person's words, ideas, translations, interpretations, or scholarly contributions.
• Fabrication or falsification: Invented or misleading research data, sources, quotations, historical evidence, translations, or other scholarly materials.
• Duplicate or redundant publication: Substantial undisclosed republication or simultaneous submission contrary to the journal's publication requirements.
• Authorship concerns: Disputed attribution, guest authorship, ghost authorship, or other material irregularities concerning scholarly contribution and responsibility.
• Undisclosed competing interests: Relevant financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests that may compromise the integrity of the research or editorial evaluation.
• Misuse of artificial intelligence: Materially misleading AI-use disclosures, fabricated AI-generated sources, inappropriate automated content, or unauthorised disclosure of protected research materials.
• Peer-review manipulation: Fraudulent reviewer identities, compromised review assignments, or other improper interference with independent scholarly evaluation.
• Research ethics violations: Serious non-compliance with applicable consent, confidentiality, institutional approval, copyright, or participant-protection requirements.

Assessment of Ethical Allegations

Allegations must be assessed according to the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and the journal's relevant ethical requirements. A complaint does not establish misconduct merely because an allegation has been submitted.

The editorial office may seek clarification from the authors or other relevant parties, examine source materials and editorial records, or consult independent experts where specialised assessment is necessary.

In serious cases, the journal may contact a relevant research institution or another appropriate authority where the issue requires investigative capacity or access to information beyond the journal's ordinary editorial responsibilities. Such contact should be proportionate and supported by the circumstances of the case.

Ethical assessment should distinguish established wrongdoing from honest error, disputed interpretation, and concerns that cannot be substantiated. In philosophical and religious scholarship, disagreements concerning interpretation, doctrinal positions, or comparative theoretical frameworks do not themselves constitute misconduct.

Post-Publication Action

Where a complaint concerns an already published article, the journal may determine whether a correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other editorial response is appropriate. Such decisions are based on the evidence established and the implications for the reliability or integrity of the publication.

A substantiated concern does not automatically result in retraction. Where an identifiable error can be corrected without undermining the article's principal scholarly contribution, a formal correction may be sufficient. Where substantial concerns remain unresolved, an Expression of Concern may be considered.

Retraction may be warranted when the central scholarly record is substantially unreliable or another serious ground for retraction is established. Such action is intended to inform readers and protect scholarly integrity rather than operate as a disciplinary punishment.

Relevant procedures are set out in CPRT's Publication Ethics Policy, Author Ethical Requirements, AI Use Policy, Corrections Policy, and Retractions, Corrections & Expressions of Concern Policy.

Timelines

CPRT seeks to acknowledge complaints and appeals promptly and provide an initial response within a reasonable period. The time required for a final determination depends on the nature of the concern, the available documentation, and whether independent scholarly or institutional assessment is necessary.

The stated periods represent the journal's administrative response targets. Acknowledgement of receipt does not constitute acceptance of a complaint, and an initial response does not necessarily constitute the final outcome of an investigation.

Complex cases may require additional time, particularly where independent reviewers must be consulted, institutional records are needed, multiple parties are involved, or significant publication-ethics concerns require further investigation.

Where the assessment cannot reasonably be completed within the initial response period, the editorial office should communicate the available status information and explain the need for further examination, subject to confidentiality and other applicable restrictions.

CPRT aims to resolve complaints and appeals without unnecessary delay while maintaining fair procedures, independent academic judgement, and appropriate consideration of the evidence.

Confidentiality and Fairness

CPRT is committed to handling complaints and appeals in a manner that protects legitimate confidentiality interests, supports fair treatment of all relevant parties, and avoids unnecessary disclosure of personal or unpublished information.

The journal applies the following principles:

• Confidential handling: Complaints, appeals, and supporting materials should be disclosed only to individuals who reasonably require access for assessment, investigation, or appropriate action.
• Impartial assessment: Concerns must be reviewed without inappropriate influence from personal interests, institutional relationships, or prior involvement in the disputed matter.
• Opportunity to respond: Individuals materially affected by a complaint should ordinarily have a reasonable opportunity to explain their actions or provide relevant information.
• Evidence-based findings: Allegations must not be treated as established facts without adequate supporting information and appropriate examination.
• Good-faith participation: Complainants and responding parties should provide accurate information, cooperate reasonably, and avoid knowingly misleading statements or deliberate interference with the assessment.
• Protection against retaliation: Individuals must not be subjected to adverse editorial treatment merely because they have raised a concern or participated in a complaint process in good faith.
• Proportionate remedies: Any corrective action must reflect the nature, evidential basis, and seriousness of the concern.

Confidentiality of Editorial Materials

Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer identities, confidential review reports, private editorial communications, and protected personal information must be handled according to the journal's confidentiality requirements and applicable legal obligations.

Parties involved in a complaint should avoid unnecessary public disclosure of confidential material and should not present unresolved allegations as established misconduct. The journal should likewise avoid making unsupported accusations in its communications or public notices.

The expectation of confidentiality does not prevent individuals from exercising applicable legal rights, reporting concerns to authorised institutions or regulatory bodies, seeking appropriate professional advice, or participating in legitimate academic discussion that does not improperly disclose protected information.

Independence of the Complaint Review

An individual whose conduct or decision is the subject of a material complaint should not exercise sole authority over the determination of that complaint. Where necessary, an independent editor, qualified Editorial Board member, or other appropriate reviewer should be appointed.

CPRT should distinguish complaints supported by credible evidence from disagreements arising through the ordinary exercise of scholarly judgement. The journal supports intellectual plurality and recognises that a rigorous peer-review process may result in different but academically defensible assessments of the same manuscript.

The purpose of the complaints and appeals process is to ensure that legitimate concerns receive fair consideration and that the journal's procedures remain accountable, independent, and consistent with responsible academic publishing.

Editorial Independence

CPRT maintains the principle that editorial decisions, complaint investigations, and appeal determinations must remain independent of inappropriate financial, commercial, institutional, personal, or ideological interference.

Manuscripts are assessed according to their scholarly merit, methodological appropriateness, originality, intellectual contribution, and compliance with the journal's publication-ethics standards. The same commitment to fairness and independence applies when editorial decisions or procedures are challenged.

The journal observes the following commitments:

• Financial independence: Article Processing Charge payments, outstanding publication charges, and requests for waivers or discounts must not influence the outcome of an appeal or complaint.
• Scholarly independence: Editorial determinations must be based on academic evidence, applicable policies, and appropriate professional judgement.
• Publisher and editorial responsibilities: The Publisher may support administrative arrangements and procedural accountability while respecting independent academic decision-making.
• Conflict-of-interest management: Complaints involving an editor, reviewer, or other relevant participant must be assigned or reviewed through arrangements that adequately manage competing interests.
• Consistency of standards: Similar concerns should be assessed under consistent principles while allowing for differences in factual circumstances and the evidence available.
• Accountability and documentation: Material decisions and appropriate supporting information should be recorded to preserve the integrity of the complaint and appeal process.

Relationship to Other Editorial Policies

The complaints and appeals procedure complements the journal's Peer Review Process, Reviewer Guidelines, Publication Ethics Policy, Author Ethical Requirements, AI Use Policy, and post-publication correction and retraction procedures.

Where a complaint identifies a specific matter governed by another policy, CPRT may apply the relevant procedure while ensuring that the concern is not improperly dismissed or subjected to an avoidable conflict of interest.

Editorial independence does not eliminate the journal's duty to correct mistakes, investigate credible ethical concerns, or reconsider decisions affected by material procedural problems. Rather, it requires these responsibilities to be exercised fairly and without improper external pressure.

CPRT seeks to maintain an accessible and accountable editorial environment in which complaints are taken seriously, appeals are examined on their merits, and scholarly disagreements are addressed through reasoned academic evaluation.