1. Appealing the Editor’s decision: Why, when, and how
Susan J. Henly
Deborah A. Chyun
Mary C. Sullivan
Judith A. Vessey
International Academy of Nursing Editors
London, August 1-3, 2016

2. Correspondence
Editor: “I’m sorry to inform you that your paper has not been accepted for publication in Nursing Research…”
Corresponding Author: “Thank you very much for your feedback... After much thought and deliberation, I am writing to ask you to reconsider your decision not to publish our paper in Nursing Research for the following reasons…”

3. Response options Ignore the message My mistake!
Implement appeals process

4. Upon reflection… Two peer reviewer recommendations were: minor; minor
Comments were generally positive
I had noticed that: the paper was a secondary analysis from a project that had generated many manuscripts
I thought peer reviewers had not thoroughly considered “what this paper adds”
In light of the differing perspectives, I was willing to consider an appeal

5. But… Nursing Research didn’t have an appeals process Should we?
Does your journal have an appeals process?
Should you?

6. Today’s objectives
Describe the rationale for creating a mechanism for authors to appeal an editor’s decision
Apply the rationale to creation of an appeals mechanism
Consider issues involved in evaluation of the appeals mechanism

7. Standards of practice
COPE: Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions.
ICMJE: Integrity…Journals should clearly state their appeals process and should have a system for responding to appeals and complaints.
APA: If your manuscript was rejected, and if you believe a pertinent point was overlooked or misunderstood…contact the editor…APA Chief Editorial Advisor…Publications and Communications Board
Scan of posted Information For Authors for nursing journals showed that few if any mentioned an Appeals Process

8. Sources of failure in journal decision making
Unfair process
Uninformed process
Unrevealed conflict of interest
Scientific jealousy—hiding behind the mask of blinded review
Unclear communication
Reviewers and Editors are fallible

9. Trial process: Appeal decision to not accept
Author
--Contacts editor
--Rationale for appeal
Editor
Editor
Informs
authors
Decides
No appeal
Appeal warranted
Editor
Considers
Decides
Convene panel
Panel
Reviews
--Ms versions
--Reviewer comments
--Correspondence
Recommends
(with rationale)
Rescind
Panel Chair
Informs Editor
Retain

10. Feedback and evaluation
Author(s)
Editor
Managing Editor
Appeals Panel
Editorial Board

11. Discussion questions-1
Do you have an appeals process? What’s your appeals process? How does it work?
What are grounds for an appeal? (Dissatisfaction with a decision to not accept is not sufficient.)
What’s are appropriate time frames for segments in an appeal process?
Appeals panel: vote or reach consensus?

12. Discussion questions-2
What information should be transmitted to authors?
Comments/deliberations to authors: blinded?
How much detail should be provided in the Information for Authors?
Is the editor the final decision maker in the appeals process?

13. Discussion questions-3
How does overlap with previously published papers figure into consideration of an appeal?
For society journals and organizational agendas: is there a role for the society Board?

14. Thank you!
Thanks to Sherry Handfinger, Managing Editor, for her contributions to the development of the Appeals Process

15. References and resources
American Marketing Association. (2016). Decision appeal policy|Journal of Marketing. Retrieved from
American Psychological Association. (2016). Appeal process for manuscript submissions. Retrieved from Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.).
COPE Code of conduct. Retrieved from
Doerr, A. (2013, September 27). How to write an appeal letter [Web log post]. Nature Methods1METHAGORA. Retrieved from letter.html
Graf, C., Deakin, L., Docking, M., Jones, J., Joshua, S., McKerahan, T., …Wyatt, D. (2014). Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: A publisher’s perspective, 2nd edition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1334, e1-e23. doi: /nyas.12549
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2016). Responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process. Retrieved from responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html

16. Abstract
Background: The Council for Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors states that journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions; the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and American Psychological Association have similar standards. Judging from review of Information for Authors documents for select journals, the practice does not appear to be widespread.
Purpose: The aim of the session is to consider the ethical and logistical issues involved in implementing a mechanism for authors to appeal against an editorial decision.
Approach: The session will involve a short presentation of background information and a case experience followed by discussion with attendees.
Discussion: Key questions to discuss involve: (a) current journal practices related to contestations of an editor’s decision about disposition of a manuscript; (b) essential components of an appeals mechanism: receiving the appeal, making the decision to allow an appeal; procedure for conducting an appeal; (c) communicating findings from the appeal and a decision to the authors; and (d) “risk management” and best practices to prevent appeals. Some related topics that may arise are operationalizing fairness in peer review and communication of priorities for publication to authors.