Complaint & Misconduct Policy
iRASD Journal of Tourism and Hospitality (JOTH) welcomes complaints by considering them as an opportunity for improvement and aims to respond to them quickly and constructively.
What a Complaint is?
Our comprehension of a complaint is as follows:
- The complainant defines his or her expression of unhappiness as a complaint.
- We infer that the complainant is not simply disagreeing with a decision we have made or something we have published but thinks that there has been a failure of process—for example, an unacceptably long delay or a rude response—or a severe misjudgment.
- The complaint must be about something that is within the responsibility of JOTHs’ editorial division i.e., content or process.
Complaint Making Process
- All complaints will be acknowledged.
- Complaints should be made either through sending an email to email@example.com or through posting to the address “House No. 219, Model Town B, Bahawalpur, Pakistan”.
- Whenever possible complaints will be dealt with by the editorial team member to whom they are made. If that person cannot deal with the complaint, he or she will refer it to the editor-in-chief.
- If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints should be escalated to the editor-in-chief, whose decision is final.
- If possible a definitive response will be made within two weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within two weeks. Interim responses will be provided until the complaint is finally resolved.
The process to Deal with Issues of Misconduct
iRASD JOTH is of the opinion that institutions and journals should promote best practices among researchers, authors, reviewers, and editors. To maintain the integrity and deal with misconduct allegations, the editor can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org or at the official address “House No. 219, Model Town B, Bahawalpur, Pakistan”. The editor is responsible for investigating cases of misconduct by researchers and for finding misconduct that could affect the reliability or attribution of published work (e.g. fabrication or plagiarism). Where possible, the evidence could be provided to support allegations of misconduct or questionable practices (e.g. copies of overlapping publications, evidence of plagiarism). Retractions or corrections are issued when provided with findings of misconduct arising from appropriate investigations. Hence, it is advised that the authors and reviewers should read the guidelines provided on the journal’s website and must be remained strictly adhered to all aspects of publication ethics.