JOVISHE: Journal of Visionary Sharia Economy, published by Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation), Indonesia, recognises that credible scholarly publishing requires procedures through which concerns can be raised, contested editorial decisions can be reconsidered, and potentially improper practices can be examined without prejudice. The journal is committed to treating complaints and appeals with procedural fairness, confidentiality, reasoned judgment, and timely communication.

This policy covers the conduct of the editorial office, editors, reviewers, and publishing personnel; the integrity of journal procedures; and requests for reconsideration of editorial decisions. It operates alongside the journal's policies on Peer Review, Publication Ethics, Conflicts of Interest, Research Misconduct, and Correction and Retraction.

This policy applies to complaints and appeals concerning manuscripts submitted to JOVISHE, editorial correspondence and peer review, accepted or published journal content, and related publishing administration. It may be invoked by a corresponding author, coauthor, reviewer, reader, institution, research-integrity representative, or another party with a legitimate concern.

The journal evaluates the nature and supporting evidence of a concern rather than the professional standing of the person raising it. Anonymous or pseudonymous reports may be considered when sufficiently specific and substantiated, although limited contact information may prevent further clarification or a direct response. Requests to investigate conduct unrelated to JOVISHE or matters outside the journal's authority may be referred to an appropriate institution or body.

The journal will distinguish an adverse academic judgment from improper procedure. Reviewers and editors may reasonably differ about novelty, methodological strength, disciplinary contribution, or fit with the journal. Such differences do not, by themselves, demonstrate bias or warrant the reversal of a decision.

• Editorial handling: significant departures from the stated peer-review procedure, unexplained irregularities in reviewer assignment, inappropriate handling of revisions, or material inaccuracies in editorial correspondence.
• Conduct and competing interests: allegations of prejudicial treatment, disrespectful communication, undisclosed relevant relationships, confidentiality breaches, or misuse of privileged manuscript information.
• Administrative practices: persistent failure to communicate, avoidable delays, inadequate notice of policy changes, or disputes concerning publicly disclosed manuscript charges or payment administration.
• Scientific and publication integrity: concerns about published findings, ethical approval, source attribution, authorship, manipulation of evaluations, and the handling of corrections or retractions.
• Decisions and remedies: appeals against rejection or other material decisions when supported by substantiated grounds rather than dissatisfaction alone.

Concerns should be submitted in writing through the official JOVISHE Contact page. The initial message should carry the subject “Complaint” or “Editorial Appeal”, followed by the manuscript identification number or the published article's DOI where applicable. This route is separate from the Makwa Foundation manuscript-registration form.

Information to include

• Identification: name, contact details, role in the matter, and the manuscript ID, article title, DOI, or relevant journal page.
• Statement of concern: a clear account of the event or decision, its date or approximate chronology, and the specific journal policy or principle thought to be implicated.
• Supporting evidence: correspondence, decision letters, dated documents, relevant manuscript passages, or other material needed to evaluate the concern.
• Requested resolution: the clarification, procedural review, reconsideration, correction, or other remedy being sought.
• Relevant interests: disclosure of any personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationship that may reasonably bear on the matter.

For a decision appeal, the corresponding author should normally submit the request on behalf of the author group after consulting the coauthors. The journal may seek confirmation of that authority where the request could affect coauthor interests. Complaints may be made in English or Indonesian; any necessary clarification will be requested through the official correspondence channel.

A formal appeal should ordinarily reach the Editorial Office within 30 calendar days of notification of the contested decision. The journal may consider a later appeal where significant new evidence, a previously undisclosed conflict, or another compelling reason explains the delay. Reports of serious research-integrity concerns are not restricted by this ordinary appeal window.

An appeal should explain why the decision may have been compromised by one or more of the following:

• Material factual error: a verifiable misunderstanding of the study design, analysis, evidence, or content that materially affected the outcome.
• Procedural irregularity: a demonstrable departure from the journal's published editorial or peer-review process.
• Undisclosed competing interest or bias: credible evidence that a relevant relationship or other improper consideration may have affected the assessment.
• Significant new information: evidence or clarification that was not reasonably available during the original evaluation and could materially change the decision.

Authors are encouraged to provide a respectful, point-by-point response to the applicable decision letter and reviewer comments, together with documentary support. An appeal based solely on a preference for different reviewers, disagreement with an assessment, or an expectation of acceptance is not sufficient. An appeal is not a new manuscript submission, and the journal may decline to reopen a matter that presents no substantive new grounds.

A complaint about a reviewer's conduct, an associate editor's actions, a confidentiality incident, a prolonged unexplained delay, inappropriate communication, or a procedural concern will be referred to a responsible editor who is not implicated in the complaint. The inquiry will focus on whether the applicable policies were followed, whether any relevant conflict of interest existed, and whether a remedy is warranted.

The journal may examine the documented review history, editorial correspondence, relevant journal policies, payment communications where pertinent, and explanations obtained from those involved. A complaint about a fee will be considered under the published Author Fees policy and its applicable terms; a fee dispute does not confer an entitlement to acceptance or a favourable peer-review outcome.

Where a complaint alleges discrimination, harassment, or serious professional misconduct, the editorial office may seek advice or refer the matter to a competent institution or appropriate authority. JOVISHE does not claim investigatory or disciplinary powers beyond its publishing responsibilities.

The following stages provide a documented, proportionate route from receipt to resolution. Steps may be adapted where an urgent risk to the scholarly record requires prompt interim action.

The publisher's oversight of procedural integrity does not create authority to demand acceptance of an academically unsuitable manuscript. Scientific evaluations remain the responsibility of appropriately qualified and unconflicted editorial decision-makers.

JOVISHE aims to acknowledge an identifiable complaint or appeal within five working days of receipt and to communicate a substantive response or an update on the status of the assessment within 30 calendar days, where the matter is sufficiently documented and does not require complex external investigation.

These periods are editorial service targets, not guarantees of a final outcome. Cases requiring independent expertise, institutional responses, extensive record examination, or action across several publications may take longer. Where practicable, the correspondent will be informed of material delays and the next steps. The journal will not manufacture, backdate, or alter correspondence to create the appearance of compliance with a target.

A substantiated complaint or successful appeal may result in one or more of the following proportionate measures:

• Explanation or clarification: a reasoned response correcting a misunderstanding about a policy or the steps followed.
• Procedural remedy: a fresh assessment by an unconflicted editor, additional independent review where justified, or renewed consideration of a material decision.
• Administrative correction: a correction to communication or processing arrangements, or a review of a fee-related issue under the applicable policy.
• Conduct-related action: reassignment of duties, reviewer-recusal measures, strengthened confidentiality arrangements, or referral to an appropriate body.
• Published-record action: an appropriate correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other notice when justified by evidence under the relevant post-publication policy.
• Confirmation of the original decision: a reasoned determination that the existing decision remains appropriate after the issues raised have been examined.

The journal will limit the disclosure of personal information, unpublished manuscript material, confidential reviewer reports, and sensitive allegations to individuals who reasonably need the information for a fair inquiry. Absolute confidentiality cannot be promised where meaningful investigation, institutional referral, legal obligation, or due process requires proportionate disclosure.

Persons raising concerns in good faith should not be subjected to retaliation or unfavourable editorial treatment for doing so. Equally, parties named in a complaint should not be presumed to have engaged in wrongdoing before relevant evidence and their response are considered. Reports should be made accurately and without knowingly false allegations or abusive communications.

The journal may consider credible anonymous reports when documentary evidence is sufficient. The identity of a reporter will be protected insofar as practicable, consistent with fair process and the legitimate requirements of an investigation.

Concerns about fabricated or falsified evidence, plagiarism, misleading authorship, manipulated peer review, or serious departures from research ethics will be assessed under the Research Misconduct and other applicable integrity policies. The Editorial Office may coordinate with an author's or reviewer's institution when a formal investigation is required. JOVISHE's primary remit is to assess the implications for the manuscript or published scholarly record, not to impose institutional discipline.

Disputes about a published paper may instead require a scholarly clarification, author reply, correction, expression of concern, or retraction under Post-Publication Discussion and Correction and Retraction. A request for reconsideration does not in itself justify removing or silently replacing published content. Any subsequent notices must be transparently dated and accurately connected to the affected article.

Following a reasoned determination, a materially affected party may request one further review if substantial new evidence emerges or a significant procedural concern remains unresolved. Wherever practicable, a different and appropriately qualified, unconflicted person will assess such a request. The journal may close repeated correspondence that supplies no material additional information after explaining its position.

Where internal processes cannot reasonably resolve a complex concern, the journal or publisher may seek independent professional advice or guidance from relevant publication-ethics resources. Reference to COPE guidance does not imply that JOVISHE is a COPE member or that COPE acts as a mandatory appellate tribunal for the journal.

The Editorial Office should preserve an authentic case file documenting the concern received, its actual submission date, acknowledgement, decision-maker and any recusal, evidence examined, requests for response, independent advice, reasons for the determination, and any corrective measures. Access should be restricted according to legitimate editorial responsibilities and applicable privacy requirements.

When the case concerns a manuscript handled through Open Journal Systems (OJS), original assignment dates, reviewer comments, editorial decisions, manuscript versions, and correspondence must remain faithful to their actual history. Journal personnel must not fabricate review activity, modify dates to fit an issue period, or retrospectively alter records to conceal a procedural failure.

Where a complaint reveals a systemic weakness, the journal may review its procedures, provide editorial training, clarify public instructions, or revise policies prospectively. Such improvements should be distinguished from the facts and decisions in the original case.

This policy forms part of JOVISHE's broader ethical-governance framework. It should be read alongside the journal's policies on peer review, authorship, competing interests, research misconduct, reviewer conduct, post-publication discussion, corrections, and publication fees. Where a specialised policy governs the scientific substance of a concern, the editorial office will coordinate the procedures without duplicating investigations or bypassing safeguards.

Related journal information

Separate JOVISHE policy pages on Research Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, Post-Publication Discussion, and Correction and Retraction provide further detail. Their links may be added to the journal navigation once their final public URLs have been confirmed.

International and national reference framework

The framework above supports JOVISHE's commitment to transparent publishing practice and the Indonesian 2026 journal-accreditation requirements. It does not substitute for carrying out and documenting the procedures described on this page.