Procedure of Authors' Complaint

The Procedure for Authors' Complaints at the Cosmic Journal of Chemistry (CJC) provides a structured, transparent mechanism for authors to raise concerns regarding editorial decisions, processing delays, reviewer conduct, or publication ethics. The journal follows standard principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1.Determine the Grounds for Complaint:Verify that your issue meets the journal's actionable criteria.

Ensure your concern falls under one of the valid categories:

  • Appeals against Rejection: Factual errors or demonstrable bias by peer reviewers/editors regarding scientific merit.

  • Process & Delay Concerns: Unreasonable delays or lack of communication during the review/publication lifecycle.

  • Editorial or Reviewer Misconduct: Breaches of confidentiality, aggressive/unprofessional review language, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.

2.Prepare Formal Documentation:Must be submitted in writing with clear supporting evidence.

Draft a concise, formal complaint letter addressed to the Chief Editor / Managing Editor. Your document should include:

  • Manuscript Details: Manuscript ID, title, and date of submission.

  • Specific Statement of Claim: Clear description of the complaint or procedural issue.

  • Supporting Evidence: Point-by-point rebuttal (for appeals), email logs, or reviewer comments in question.

3.Submit via Official Channels:Direct email to the Editorial Office.

Send your complaint directly to the official journal contact email specified on the portal (cjc@cosmic.edu.pk or via the official contact form on the CJC Portal).

Avoid submitting complaints as public comments or contacting reviewers directly.

4.Initial Assessment & Acknowledgment:Timeline: 3 to 7 business days.

  • The Editorial Office acknowledges receipt of the complaint.

  • An administrative check determines whether the complaint contains sufficient evidence for a formal investigation.

5.Investigation & Independent Review:Conducted by non-conflicted editors or board members.

  • For Editorial Decisions: The manuscript and rebuttal are assigned to an independent Editorial Board member or an independent reviewer not involved in the original decision.

  • For Misconduct or Process Complaints: The Chief Editor reviews the OJS log history and reviewer communications according to COPE guidelines.

6.Final Resolution & Notification:Written outcome conveyed to the author.

The Chief Editor issues a formal written outcome. Possible resolutions include:

  • Appeal Sustained: Reopening the manuscript for fresh, independent peer review.

  • Appeal Upheld/Upheld Decision: Original rejection stands, with additional detailed clarification provided.

  • Corrective Action: Adjusting administrative delays, issuing an apology, or replacing a reviewer/editor for future interactions.

Key Policies to Remember

  • Editorial Finality: Decisions rendered following an independent appeal investigation are final. Repeated appeals on the same rejected manuscript without new scientific data will not be considered.

  • Professional Tone: Complaints containing abusive, hostile, or defamatory language will be dismissed without review under the journal's Code of Conduct.

    The Cosmic Journal of Chemistry (CJC) adheres to standard publishing ethics guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Higher Education Commission (HEC) to handle post-publication amendments, corrections, and retractions.

    Post-publication updates are categorized into Corrections (Errata/Corrigenda), Expressions of Concern, and Retractions based on the severity of the issue.

    1. Types of Post-Publication Amendments

    Category Trigger / Reason Action Taken
    Erratum Minor error introduced by the publisher (e.g., typesetting mistake, layout formatting, or missed author proof response). A formal Erratum notice is published, linked to the original article without altering the core research.
    Corrigendum Significant factual error introduced by the authors (e.g., misreported data point, correction in formulas/tables, missed funding/co-author). Published free of charge as a separate notice linked to the original PDF. Minor typos that do not impact data integrity are not corrected.
    Expression of Concern Inconclusive evidence or ongoing institutional investigation regarding scientific misconduct, data authenticity, or peer-review manipulation. An official editorial warning is attached to the article while the formal investigation takes place.
    Retraction Severe scientific error that invalidates findings, or gross misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, ethical breach). The original article is watermarked "RETRACTED", and a formal retraction statement is published.
    1.Initiation & Notification:Submitted by authors, readers, reviewers, or third-party institutions.

    • Concerns or requests for correction are submitted in writing to the Chief Editor / Editorial Office.

    • The editor performs a preliminary desk review to evaluate whether the error affects the scientific validity or violates ethical practices.

    2.Editorial Investigation & Author Contact:Conducted under COPE flowcharts.

    • The Editorial Office contacts the corresponding author to request a formal response, raw data, or clarification.

    • For serious allegations, the Chief Editor may form an independent Publication Integrity Committee or notify the author's host institution.

    3.Decision & Classification:Evaluation of evidence.

    Based on the evidence:

    • Minor/Factual Error: Approved for Erratum or Corrigendum.

    • Unresolved/Ongoing Inquiry: Issue an Expression of Concern.

    • Fatal Flaw / Misconduct: Formal decision to Retract.

    4.Publication & Versioning:Permanent preservation of the scholarly record.

    • Linking: The formal notice (Correction or Retraction) is assigned its own DOI, published in the next available issue, and permanently cross-linked to the original article.

    • Watermarking: Retracted articles remain accessible on the OJS platform to preserve bibliographic history, but the PDF is stamped with a permanent "RETRACTED" watermark across all pages.

    Key Policy Notes

    • No Full Removal: Articles are almost never deleted entirely from the website/ OJS database, except under rare legal mandates (e.g., court orders, severe defamation, or public health risks).

    • Free Corrigendum: Authors are not charged any fee for publishing an official Corrigendum or Erratum for legitimate scientific corrections.


      Corrigendum Request Letter Template

      Date: mm,date, year

      To:

      The Chief Editor / Managing Editor

      Cosmic Journal of Chemistry

      cjc@cosmic.edu.pk

      Subject: Request for Corrigendum: Article ID [Insert Article ID / Manuscript Number]

      Dear Editor-in-Chief,

      I am writing on behalf of all co-authors to formally request a Corrigendum for our article titled "[Insert Full Article Title]", which was published in Cosmic Journal of Chemistry, Volume [Volume Number], Issue [Issue Number], Year [Year], Pages [Page Numbers / Article ID], DOI: [Insert Article DOI].

      Upon a recent review of our published paper, we identified an unintentional error that requires correction to ensure scientific accuracy and clarity for the scholarly record.

      1. Description of the Error

      [Provide a concise description of where the error is located and what went wrong. Example: In Section 2.3 (Synthesis Procedure), paragraph 2, line 4, the concentration of hydrochloric acid was erroneously reported as 5.0 M instead of 0.5 M.]

      2. Original Text / Data (As Published)

      "[Quote or paste the exact sentence, table entry, formula, or figure caption as currently published.]"

      3. Proposed Corrected Text / Data

      "[Provide the exact corrected sentence, updated table row, or revised formula as it should appear in the Corrigendum.]"

      4. Scientific Impact

      We confirm that this error was entirely inadvertent and does not affect the overall scientific conclusions, experimental integrity, or findings of the study. [Briefly explain why conclusions remain unaffected, e.g., "The correct concentration of 0.5 M was used during actual laboratory experiments, as recorded in our original laboratory notebook data."].

      5. Author Consent

      All co-authors have reviewed this request, agreed upon the proposed correction, and approved the submission of this Corrigendum.

      We apologize for any inconvenience this oversight may cause to the editorial team and the readers of the journal. We appreciate your assistance in updating the scholarly record.

      Please let us know if any additional information or raw files are required.

      Sincerely,

      [Your Full Name]

      (Corresponding Author)

      [Your Designation / Department]

      [Your Institution / University Name]

      [Your Email Address]

      [Your Phone / Contact Number]

      On behalf of co-authors:

      1. [Co-Author 1 Name, Affiliation]

      2. [Co-Author 2 Name, Affiliation]

      Tips Before Sending

      • Attach Proofs: If the error involves a complex table, equation, or graph, attach both the original file and the corrected high-resolution file to your email.

      • Use the Corresponding Email: Send the request directly from the email address registered in the Open Journal Systems (OJS) account for this manuscript.