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 Editors, who will address the matter in accordance with the procedures outlined on the “Editors” [link term to page] page under our Publication Ethics drop-down menu. Concerns regarding editorial conduct, peer review practices, conflicts of interest, or procedural irregularities may likewise be directed to the Editors or, where appropriate, to the President of the Hume Society.

Appeals of editorial decisions should ordinarily be directed first to the Editors. Appeals should explain clearly the grounds for reconsideration and should respond substantively to the reasons given in the original decision. The Editors 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 Editors, the matter may be referred to the President [link term to contact page] of the Hume Society. The President may, at their discretion, convene an ad hoc committee drawn from members of the Editorial Board or Executive Committee who do not have a conflict of interest in the matter under review.

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.