Subscriber Login

  • This account has no valid subscription for this site.

Forgotten your password?

Show Summary Details
Page of

Appealing a Rejection 

Appealing a Rejection

Editorial Assessment and Processing

Richard M. Glass

Page of

PRINTED FROM AMA MANUAL OF STYLE ONLINE ( © American Medical Association, 2009. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the license agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in AMA Manual of Style Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). 

Subscriber: null; date: 29 September 2016

Appealing a Rejection

If a paper is rejected, authors occasionally ask for reconsideration, usually because they believe the reviewers or the editor have misjudged the importance and quality of the submission. This situation can be viewed in 2 different ways. On the one hand, peer review and editorial decisions are based on fallible human judgments. Mistakes can be made, so perhaps the rejected manuscript merits reconsideration. On the other hand, heeding appeals for reconsideration may fulfill the adage “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Reconsideration of papers solely on the basis of author complaints could be unfair to authors who have equally legitimate grounds for reconsideration but who do not appeal. Thus, some journals take the position that rejections are final. Other journals reconsider rejected submissions at the discretion of the editor who made the initial decision. Such discretion usually would include consideration of whether the authors provide objective grounds for reconsideration of the original decision, particularly if they can provide new data or new analyses, as opposed to differences of opinion about editorial priority (see 6.1.2, Assessment Criteria, and 5.11.5, Ethical and Legal Considerations, Editorial Responsibilities, Rules, Procedures, and Policies, Editorial Responsibility for Rejection).

Previous | Next