Complaints and Appeals

Concerns regarding possible academic misconduct by an Author whose work is under review by or has appeared in Hume Studies should be directed to the Editor(s), who will address the matter in accordance with the applicable procedures. Concerns regarding editorial conduct, peer review practices, conflicts of interest, or procedural irregularities may likewise be directed to the Editor(s) or, where appropriate, to the President of the Hume Society qua Publisher.

Appeals of editorial decisions should ordinarily be directed first to the Editor(s). Appeals should explain clearly the grounds for reconsideration and should respond substantively to the reasons given in the original decision. The Editor(s) may consult additional reviewers or members of the Editorial Board where appropriate. Editorial decisions will not normally be reconsidered solely on the basis of disagreement with a reviewer's scholarly judgment.

If a complainant or appellant believes that a matter has not been adequately resolved by the Editor(s), the matter may be referred to the President of the Hume Society qua Publisher. The President may, at their discretion, convene an ad hoc committee comprised of at least two members of the Editorial Board who do not have a conflict of interest in the matter under review. The judgment of this Committee, which reports to the Publisher, shall be final.

Editors shall aim to acknowledge complaints and appeals within one month. Matters requiring formal review may require additional time depending on complexity and the availability of relevant parties.

All complaints, appeals, and associated correspondence shall be treated confidentially, subject to the requirements of fair investigation, legal obligations, and protection of the integrity of the scholarly record. See the applicable policies at https://humestudies.humesociety.org/index.php/hs/peme.