Summary
Rejection is a normal part of academic publishing, but it does not always have to be the final word on your manuscript. In some cases, an appeal may be justified—particularly when reviewers have clearly misunderstood central aspects of the work, made factual errors, or when the editorial decision appears inconsistent with the journal’s policies and the content of the reviews. A well-prepared appeal can correct misunderstandings and occasionally lead to re-evaluation or even eventual acceptance.
However, appealing is not a step to take lightly. Appeals are rarely successful when a paper has genuine methodological problems, lacks novelty, or clearly falls outside the journal’s scope. The process can be time-consuming, emotionally draining, and may delay submission to a more suitable journal. Authors must therefore weigh the potential benefits of an appeal against the opportunity cost of revising and moving on, and they must carefully respect journal policies and professional etiquette at all times.
This article explains when an appeal might be warranted, when it is better to revise and submit elsewhere, and how to prepare a respectful, evidence-based appeal letter. It also offers practical guidance on interpreting reviewer feedback, seeking independent advice, and improving your manuscript through human proofreading and editing. By approaching appeals strategically and professionally, researchers can protect their reputation, make informed decisions, and give strong manuscripts the fairest possible chance of publication.
📖 Full Length Article (Click to collapse)
Appealing a Manuscript Rejection: When It Makes Sense and How to Do It
Introduction
Few emails are as discouraging for a researcher as the one that begins, “We regret to inform you that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in our journal.” Manuscript rejection is a routine part of academic life, but it can still feel like a personal setback. In most cases, the best response is to accept the decision, carefully revise the paper, and submit it to a different, more suitable journal. However, there are situations where an author may reasonably believe that the rejection was unfair or based on serious misunderstandings or errors. In such cases, appealing the decision can be considered.
Appeals are not a shortcut to acceptance and should not be used simply because an author disagrees with criticism. They require a realistic assessment of the reviews, a calm and professional tone, and strong evidence that something has gone wrong in the editorial process. This article explores when an appeal might be justified, the potential benefits and risks of appealing, and best practices for drafting an effective appeal. It also offers alternatives to appeal and practical advice on how to turn rejection into a constructive step toward publication.
Understanding Manuscript Rejection
Before considering an appeal, it is essential to understand the most common reasons why manuscripts are rejected. Many of these reasons are not appealable; instead, they require revision or a different target journal.
Common Reasons for Rejection
- Lack of novelty: The study does not offer sufficiently new insights beyond what is already published.
- Flawed methodology: The research design, sample, data collection, or statistical analysis is weak, inappropriate, or insufficiently described.
- Poor writing and presentation: The manuscript is difficult to follow due to unclear language, poor organisation, or incomplete reporting of key information.
- Scope mismatch: The topic, method, or article type does not fit the journal’s aims and scope.
- Negative reviewer feedback: Reviewers raise substantial and reasonable concerns about the study’s validity, significance, or ethical standards.
- Ethical issues: Concerns arise about plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity, authorship disputes, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Rejections based on novelty, methodology, or scope are usually not suitable for appeal. Instead, they require honest reflection and significant revision—or a better-matched journal. Appeals are more appropriate when you can demonstrate that the decision was based on factual error, misinterpretation, or inconsistent application of the journal’s policies.
Check the Journal’s Policy First
Not all journals allow appeals. Some explicitly state that editorial decisions are final and will not be reconsidered. Others allow appeals under specific conditions, such as suspected reviewer bias or clear factual errors. Policies are typically outlined in the “Instructions for Authors” or “Editorial Policies” section of the journal’s website. Before spending time on an appeal, confirm that the journal accepts them and how they should be submitted.
Pros of Appealing a Manuscript Rejection
When used appropriately, an appeal can correct important misunderstandings and sometimes lead to a more favourable outcome.
1. Clarifying Misunderstandings
Reviewers sometimes misinterpret methods, misread tables, or overlook information that is briefly stated or buried in dense text. If the rejection is clearly based on such misunderstandings, an appeal allows you to clarify these points for the editor, and in some cases, for a new reviewer.
2. Correcting Reviewer Errors
Reviewers, like all humans, can make mistakes. They may claim that a method is invalid when it is standard in your field, cite incorrect literature, or criticise you for not referencing a paper that was, in fact, published after your study was completed. If you can provide clear evidence that the rejection relies on factual errors, an appeal may be justified.
3. Requesting Re-Evaluation by Senior Editors
Some journals allow manuscripts to be reassessed by a senior editor, an associate editor who was not involved in the original decision, or an additional independent reviewer. If your appeal raises valid, well-supported points, the editor may seek a second opinion, which can sometimes change the outcome.
4. Potential Path to Acceptance
In a minority of cases, a strong appeal can lead to the decision being changed from outright rejection to “revise and resubmit” or “major revisions.” Even when rejection is upheld, editors sometimes provide more detailed feedback that can help you improve the manuscript for another journal.
5. Upholding Fairness and Research Integrity
If you have strong reason to suspect bias, conflict of interest, or a serious breach of the journal’s own review procedures, appealing can be an important step in ensuring that your work is judged fairly. This should be done cautiously and respectfully, focusing on evidence rather than emotion.
Cons and Risks of Appealing a Manuscript Rejection
Appeals also carry risks and limitations, and often the best decision is to revise and move on.
1. Low Success Rate
Most appeals do not lead to acceptance. Editors will typically stand by the original decision unless you can clearly demonstrate an error or serious oversight. If the reviewers’ criticisms are fundamentally valid, an appeal is unlikely to succeed.
2. Delayed Publication
Appeals can take weeks or months. During that time, your manuscript is usually “locked” with that journal—you cannot ethically submit it elsewhere. If the likelihood of reversal is low, this delay may not be worth the potential benefit, especially for time-sensitive work or early-career researchers under pressure to publish.
3. Risk of Straining Relationships
Appeals that are aggressive, accusatory, or poorly justified can damage your relationship with the journal’s editorial team. Editors are more likely to look favourably on future submissions from authors who remain professional and courteous—even when they disagree.
4. Extra Work Without Guarantee
Preparing an appeal involves carefully re-reading reviews, collecting evidence, drafting a detailed letter, and sometimes revising the manuscript. This is a significant investment of time and effort with no guarantee of success.
5. Journal Policies May Limit Options
If the journal clearly states that decisions are final, submitting an appeal anyway may reflect poorly on your professionalism. In such situations, your energy is better spent improving the paper and identifying a more suitable journal.
When Is an Appeal Justified?
Not every disappointing review is grounds for an appeal. Consider appealing only if one or more of the following conditions apply and you can document them:
- Clear factual errors: Reviewers have misunderstood fundamental methods or misreported your results in ways that materially affected the decision.
- Conflicting reviews: One reviewer strongly recommends acceptance or minor revision, while another recommends outright rejection on subjective grounds with little evidence.
- Evidence of editorial inconsistency: The decision appears inconsistent with the journal’s published policies, or the editor has not engaged with key points in the reviews.
- Vague or unexplained rejection: You receive a rejection with little or no explanation, particularly after peer review, and you believe that a more detailed justification is warranted.
If, on honest reflection, you can see that the reviewers have exposed genuine weaknesses in your study design, analysis, or clarity of writing, an appeal is unlikely to be productive. In such cases, revising thoroughly and submitting elsewhere is usually the better option.
How to Prepare an Effective Appeal
If you decide that an appeal is justified and permitted by the journal’s policies, take a structured, professional approach.
1. Re-Read the Reviews Calmly
Give yourself time after receiving the rejection before drafting an appeal. Initial emotional reactions—frustration, anger, disappointment—can cloud your judgment. Re-read the editor’s decision letter and all reviewer comments carefully, ideally after a day or two, and highlight points where you believe genuine misunderstandings or errors have occurred.
2. Seek an Independent Opinion
Before appealing, ask a trusted colleague, supervisor, or mentor to review the decision letter, reviews, and your manuscript. They can offer a more objective perspective and may confirm either that the reviewers’ criticisms are reasonable or that an appeal is worth attempting. Independent feedback can also help you refine your arguments.
3. Check the Journal’s Appeal Procedure
Some journals provide specific instructions for appeals: who to contact, what to include, and how long you have to submit. Follow these instructions precisely. If no formal procedure is given, address your appeal to the editor-in-chief or handling editor, using a clear subject line such as “Appeal of Decision on Manuscript [ID]: [Short Title].”
4. Write a Respectful, Evidence-Based Appeal Letter
Your appeal letter should be concise, structured, and professional. Avoid emotional language, accusations, or statements that challenge the editor’s authority. Instead, focus on specific, documented points.
Key elements of an appeal letter:
- Polite opening: Thank the editor and reviewers for their time and effort.
- Clear purpose: State that you are respectfully requesting reconsideration and briefly explain why.
- Structured response: Address the main points that led to rejection, one by one, indicating where you believe errors or misunderstandings occurred.
- Supporting evidence: Provide citations, methodological references, or clarifications that demonstrate the validity of your arguments.
- Willingness to revise: Emphasise that you are happy to revise the manuscript extensively if the editor allows resubmission or further review.
- Professional closing: Thank the editor again and express appreciation for their consideration.
Example Appeal Letter Framework
Subject: Appeal of Decision on Manuscript [ID] – “[Manuscript Title]”
Dear [Editor’s Name],
Thank you for the time and care that you and the reviewers devoted to evaluating our manuscript, “[Title].” While we respect the decision to reject the paper, we would like to request reconsideration based on the points outlined below.
-
Reviewer 1’s interpretation of the methodology
Reviewer 1 states that our sampling approach “introduces uncontrolled selection bias.” However, as outlined in Section 2.3 and in [Reference], stratified random sampling is an accepted method for this type of study. We have amended the manuscript to clarify the rationale and have added additional references to support this choice. -
Misunderstanding of the primary outcome
Reviewer 2 indicates that we “did not measure long-term outcomes,” yet our primary outcome was explicitly defined as a 12-month follow-up, as shown in Table 2 and described in Section 3.2. We recognise that this may not have been sufficiently emphasised and have revised the text to make this clearer. -
Conflicting recommendations
Reviewer 3 recommended acceptance with minor revisions, while Reviewer 2 recommended rejection based on concerns that we believe have now been addressed. We would be grateful if you could consider sending the revised manuscript for further evaluation or an additional opinion.
We have revised the manuscript to clarify these points and would be happy to undertake any further changes you feel are necessary. We appreciate your consideration and thank you again for your time.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Affiliation]
[Contact information]
5. Improve the Manuscript Before or Alongside the Appeal
Even when you believe reviewers have misunderstood your work, ask yourself whether the manuscript could be clearer. Ambiguous phrasing, missing details, or confusing figures may have contributed to misinterpretation. Before appealing—or as part of the process—consider revising the manuscript, and, where appropriate, using human proofreading and editing services to enhance clarity, coherence, and adherence to journal style.
Be Prepared for Any Outcome
After you submit your appeal, several outcomes are possible:
- The editor upholds the rejection without further review.
- The editor invites you to resubmit a revised version, often with specific guidance.
- The editor sends the paper for additional review by another reviewer or associate editor.
If the appeal is denied, it is normally best to accept the decision and move on. Repeated appeals on the same manuscript to the same journal are almost never appropriate and can harm your professional reputation.
Alternatives to Appealing a Rejection
In many cases, appealing is not the best use of your time. Alternatives include:
- Revising and submitting to another journal: Carefully address the valid points from the reviews, strengthen the manuscript, and identify a more suitable outlet.
- Substantial reworking and resubmission (if allowed): Some journals encourage authors to resubmit a significantly revised version as a new submission rather than appealing.
- Seeking independent feedback: Ask colleagues, mentors, or professional editors to review the manuscript and the rejection comments to identify areas for improvement.
Remember that many highly cited papers were rejected one or more times before finding the right journal. Rejection is not a final judgment on the value of your work; it is often a sign that the manuscript or journal choice needs adjustment.
Conclusion
Appealing a manuscript rejection can be appropriate in specific circumstances—particularly when there is clear evidence of misunderstanding, factual error, or inconsistency in the review process. However, appeals are rarely successful when fundamental issues of quality, clarity, or scope are at stake. Before deciding to appeal, authors should carefully review the reasons for rejection, consult the journal’s policies, and seek independent advice.
When an appeal is justified, it must be conducted professionally: with respect for the editor and reviewers, a focus on evidence rather than emotion, and a willingness to revise the manuscript further. In many cases, though, the most productive response to rejection is to strengthen the paper—improving methodology, argumentation, and language with the support of experienced human proofreaders and editors—and then submit it to a more suitable journal.
Handled thoughtfully, rejection and, where necessary, appeal can become part of a constructive publication journey rather than an endpoint. The goal is not simply to reverse a decision, but to ensure that robust, clearly presented research finds the audience and outlet it deserves.
