Complaints, appeals, corrections and retractions
The journal Anales de Teología examines complaints and appeals concerning its decisions, editorial procedures, published content, and the conduct of those involved in these activities. Submissions will be handled impartially, confidentially, and independently, with respect for the right of those involved to be informed of the relevant concerns and respond to them.
Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions aim to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. They are not sanctions against authors and must not be used to resolve personal disputes or punish conduct that does not affect the publication.
Submitting complaints and appeals
Complaints and appeals must be sent to analesteologia@ucsc.cl. The communication must identify the manuscript, publication, decision, or conduct being challenged; clearly describe the facts; include the available supporting information; and indicate, where applicable, the action requested.
The journal may examine anonymous communications when they provide sufficient information and supporting evidence for a responsible assessment. Failure to identify the person making an allegation will not prevent it from being processed, but may limit the ability to verify the facts or communicate the outcome.
Receipt will be acknowledged within five business days. Admissibility and the applicable procedure will generally be determined within fifteen business days of receipt. Submissions that are manifestly unfounded, imprecise, outside the journal’s remit, or repetitive without providing new information may be dismissed with a reasoned response.
Handling and independence
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for coordinating the handling of complaints and appeals. When an appeal concerns a decision in which the Editor-in-Chief participated, the matter will be examined by an Associate Editor who was not involved and has no conflict of interest or, if none meets these conditions, by an Editorial Board member from outside UCSC who has no conflict of interest.
Allegations of possible ethical breaches will be examined by the Editor-in-Chief together with an Editorial Board member who has no conflict of interest. When a complaint or allegation involves the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor, the examination will be conducted by two Editorial Board members from outside UCSC who have no conflicts of interest. When it involves an Editorial Board member, that person will be excluded from the examination. If a sufficiently independent body cannot be formed, external specialists without conflicts of interest will be asked to participate. No one may decide a complaint or appeal concerning a decision in which they were directly involved.
The journal may request supporting information from the parties, consult independent specialists, and seek information from the relevant institutions. Those whose conduct is questioned will be informed of the substantive aspects of the submission and will have fifteen business days to respond before a decision is made, unless doing so could compromise an investigation, someone’s safety, or a legal obligation. The identity of the person making an allegation will remain confidential throughout the procedure, unless that person expressly consents to disclosure or disclosure is legally required.
Information will be shared only with those who need to participate in the procedure. Confidentiality will not prevent the journal from consulting the University, other journals, institutions of affiliation, or competent authorities when necessary to clarify the facts or protect the integrity of the process.
The journal will aim to resolve appeals within thirty business days of their admission and conclude complaints and investigations within sixty business days. If the complexity of a case requires more time, the journal will inform the parties of the reasons and the estimated date of resolution.
Appeals against editorial decisions
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a substantive procedural error occurred, relevant information was not considered, or the manuscript or reports were manifestly misinterpreted. Mere disagreement with the decision or the reviewers’ scholarly judgment is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.
A reasoned appeal must be submitted within thirty calendar days of notification of the decision. Revised versions of the manuscript must not be attached unless expressly requested.
The person examining the appeal may consult the editorial records and seek a further specialist opinion. On that basis, they may uphold the challenged decision with reasons or set it aside and reopen the editorial process. Only one appeal per decision will be admitted, and submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the decision will be changed.
Allegations of serious misconduct
Allegations concerning harassment, violence, discrimination, abuse of authority, or other serious misconduct will be examined within the journal’s remit when verifiable evidence exists and there is a reasonable connection to:
- the reliability or ethical provenance of a contribution;
- the integrity of the review process or editorial decision;
- the accuracy of authorship, affiliation, or submitted declarations;
- the existence of undisclosed conflicts of interest; or
- the safety of those participating in the journal’s activities or processes.
The journal does not determine criminal or disciplinary liability or make general assessments of authors’ moral conduct. The existence of an allegation, formal accusation, pending investigation, or public controversy does not in itself establish responsibility or constitute automatic grounds for rejection or retraction.
Where necessary, the journal may verify the status of institutional or judicial proceedings, request information from the parties, and activate the relevant University protocols. It may also take preventive and proportionate measures within its own processes, such as recusal, reassignment, or temporary suspension of a person from editorial, reviewing, or representative duties. These measures do not constitute a finding of responsibility and must be reviewed when the information that justified them changes.
A published contribution will be subject to a correction, expression of concern, or retraction only when the alleged facts directly affect its reliability, ethical provenance, or the integrity of the procedure through which it was accepted. Conduct unrelated to the publication does not in itself justify altering the scholarly record.
Examination of published content
Anyone may report errors or possible breaches concerning a published contribution, and authors may request the correction or retraction of their own work when they identify an error affecting it. The journal will conduct a preliminary assessment and, where sufficient grounds exist, open an investigation in accordance with the procedure established in this policy.
Theological, interpretive, or methodological differences do not in themselves constitute editorial errors. They may lead to responses, discussions, or new scholarly contributions, but not to changes to the published text unless false information, incorrect references, substantial misrepresentations, or other breaches of integrity are demonstrated.
Depending on the nature and seriousness of the problem, the journal may publish a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction and, exceptionally, remove content.
The decision to publish a substantive correction, an expression of concern, a retraction, or a removal notice rests with the Editor-in-Chief or, when the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, a substitute appointed in accordance with the Editorial Ethics and Independence policy. The measure may be taken even if the authors disagree, provided that sufficient evidence exists and due process has been observed.
Correction
A correction will be published when a significant error or omission is identified that does not invalidate the argument or the contribution as a whole. The notice will clearly describe the error and the correction made, state whether it is published at the authors’ request or on the journal’s initiative, and remain linked to the original publication.
Purely typographical, spelling, or presentation errors that do not alter the meaning may be corrected directly, with a record kept in the internal editorial file. When a change may affect the interpretation, citation, or identification of the text, a public record of it will be provided.
Expression of concern
An expression of concern may be published when serious and well-founded doubts exist about the integrity or reliability of a contribution but the available evidence does not yet permit a final decision; when an ongoing investigation may take considerable time to produce results; or when the competent institution cannot conduct an adequate investigation.
An expression of concern is neither a retraction nor a finding of responsibility. It must state the reasons justifying it and will be updated or replaced by a correction, retraction, or notice closing the case when conclusive evidence becomes available.
An expression of concern will not be published over allegations or personal conduct that have no demonstrable connection to the integrity of the contribution.
Retraction
A contribution may be retracted when conclusive evidence establishes that its content is unreliable or that its publication resulted from a substantive breach. Possible grounds include:
- fundamental errors that invalidate the work;
- fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of sources, data, or materials;
- substantial plagiarism or redundant publication;
- research conducted without the required ethics approvals;
- fraudulent authorship, identity, or documentation;
- serious copyright infringements;
- manipulated or compromised peer review; or
- conflicts of interest whose concealment substantially affected the review or editorial decision.
An author’s refusal to cooperate will not prevent retraction when sufficient evidence exists.
The retraction notice will clearly identify the contribution concerned, the reasons, and who is taking the action. It will use objective language and, where possible, distinguish unintentional errors from conduct contrary to integrity.
The retracted contribution will remain accessible, visibly identified as retracted, and linked to the corresponding notice. Its DOI, webpage, and metadata will be retained to preserve the traceability of the scholarly record.
Exceptional removal of content
Removal of the full text will occur only exceptionally when required by a court order or legal obligation; when the content is manifestly unlawful; when it seriously infringes a person’s privacy or confidentiality; or when its continued availability creates a serious and verifiable risk that cannot be remedied through a correction or retraction.
In such cases, the publication’s webpage and a notice explaining the removal will be retained, unless a legal obligation prevents that information from being provided. The journal will not silently delete published records.
Decision and communication
Decisions will be based on the available evidence and communicated in writing to those directly involved. When public action is appropriate, authors will be informed before it is published, unless there is an urgent need to protect third parties or preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.
The journal may share information with institutions of affiliation or other authorities when sufficient indications exist of a breach requiring institutional investigation. The submission of an allegation alone will not justify such disclosure.
Actions and decisions will be documented and retained confidentially. Complaints made in good faith will not result in retaliation, even if they are ultimately not upheld.
This policy draws on COPE’s guidelines on retractions and expressions of concern, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
