Complaints and appeals投拆与申诉

“Journals should have a clearly described process for handling complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board or publisher”. This refers to COPE’s Core Practice #3 and it is good advice and might be the only advice you need if all human beings operated solely with agreed upon objective and rational principles and facts. But, as most editors will have experienced when violations of publication ethics arise, some cases involve passions, disagreements about the facts, allegations and counter allegations and, sometimes, too much bias and gossip. So, in such cases, how do editors separate the wheat from the chaff? What do you do when you are presented with a complex and awkward situation, query or complaint?

“期刊编辑部应该对针对期刊、编辑部职员、编委、出版商的投诉问题制订明确的投诉和申诉处理程序。”这是COPE出版伦理核心实践3的内容，这个是一条好的建议，如果所有人都按照约定的目标和合理的原则或者事实来运作，这可能是期刊编辑人员所需要的唯一建议。但是，就像违反出版伦理的事件出现时大多数编辑所经历的那样，有些案例可能涉及对某事的狂热，或者对事实认定的不一致，出现指控和反指控，有时还存在很多的偏见和流言。在这类情况下，编辑人员该如何加以辨别？期刊编辑人员在面临复杂而又尴尬的情形--质询或者投诉时，该怎么办？

We hope that COPE stands as a resource for rational and principled decision-making through the various resources we provide to help members make decisions in a stepwise manner, based on the facts of the case.

Just the facts!

我们希望COPE通过向成员们提供资源，编辑人员能够根据事实，利用我们提供的各种资源，依照步骤，作出合理而且符合原则的决定。

Perhaps we need to focus on what we ask of those submitting a complaint to COPE. In general, we urge anyone involved in authoring, editing or publishing scholarly manuscripts to carefully follow the journal directions about authorship, data management or other potentially problematic issues. In turn, we need to expect publishers and journals to give clear directions and boundaries to the authors who want to submit manuscripts.

也许我们需要重点关注我们请求大家提交到COPE的投诉。一般情况下，我们登促涉及学术稿件撰写、编辑、出版的各方在对署名、数据管理和其他可能存在问题的方面认真地遵循期刊指南。反过来说，我们希望出版者和期刊为投稿作者给出明确的指示和清晰的边界。

It is essential that all involved in the publication process, and particularly in complaints, carefully stick to the facts of the situation, refer to standards and policies (eg, your own, community standards, COPE guidance), and follow established processes (eg, COPE flowcharts). This needs to be carefully documented and articulated to COPE at the time of the complaint. Know what you can decide upon and when to decide; and know what you can’t decide upon that requires decisions from other parties that you might then react or respond to (eg, institutions or publishers).

最根本的是，出版过程所牵涉的各方，特别是在投诉时，要根据具体实情，参考相关的政策和标准（可以是期刊自己的标准，学界的标准，或者COPE指南），按照现有的流程（如COPE的流程）进行处理。在向COPE投诉时，要进行存档，而且要考虑如何阐述。要知道你能做的决定是什么，什么时候做决定，还得知道哪些决定不能自己做，而得依靠其他方面来做决定，你可能得向某些机构或者出版者反映或者对他们的要求进行回应。

COPE recognises that complaints are often awkward, involving situations that are best handled by all parties sticking to the facts (as much as possible), avoiding being drawn into politics, and applying recognized standards and using established processes. All are encouraged to use peers and colleagues whenever possible (rather than dealing with the dilemma alone). COPE members can always use COPE for advice and support.

COPE意识到投诉往往令人难堪，有些情形最好各方尽可能根据事实进行处理，要避免卷入政治纠纷中，要采用公认的标准和确定的程序。鼓励大家在遇到难题时不要个人专断，要多与同行和同事商量。COPE成员总是可以采用COPE的建议或者向COPE寻求支持。

COPE will approach your complaint with systematic questions, clarifying the situation, and will attempt to help you understand and resolve your publication ethics problem. COPE is like Switzerland in its neutral, educational stance around complaints. 

COPE将针对你的投诉采用系统的问题解决路径，弄清情况，设法帮助你了解和解决你在出版伦理中出现的问题。COPE在面对投诉时就像瑞士那样保持中立的立场和本着教育的立场。

COPE co-chairs Geri Pearson and Chris Graf 
Vice Chair and Chair Elect Deborah Poff

来源：https://publicationethics.org/news/complaints-and-appeals?utm_source=All+Subscribers&utm_campaign=84561b2447-Digest_Complaints+and+Appeals_April+2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6eb8aec9d3-84561b2447-263892161

翻译后记：

这段话读起来似乎感觉简单，可是翻译起来确不是很顺畅。希望同行给予批评指正！也许过一段时间再读再译会译得更顺畅一些。