How to Appeal a Journal Rejection

Most rejections should not be appealed. The few that should rest on a decisive factual error, and your letter has to show that error rather than argue the paper again.

Guide · 11 min read · Directive Publications Editorial Team

Appeal, resubmit, or move on

Most rejections should not be appealed, and publishers say so themselves. Taylor & Francis tells authors that editors don't expect frequent appeals, rarely reverse their original decisions, and that a rejected author is strongly advised to submit to another journal.

An appeal is a narrow request: it asks the editor to reconsider a decision on the manuscript they already assessed, because that decision rested on a mistake. It is not a second opinion on whether your paper is interesting. Whether you may attach anything new varies by publisher, so check the policy: Taylor & Francis invites authors to provide any new information or data they would like the journal to take into consideration, while Elsevier asks for point-by-point responses, with supporting evidence, to the comments behind the decision and does not say whether new data may be added.

So before you write anything, work out which situation you are in.

The difference between an appeal and a resubmission also shapes how the editor handles your file. An appeal argues that the decision on the reviewed version was wrong, and the letter carries the case. A resubmission accepts the decision and offers a changed paper, which a journal may handle as a revision or as a new submission, depending on the decision letter and its own policy. If the letter is ambiguous, ask the editorial office which it permits before you send either. If you are moving on, From Rejection to Acceptance covers what usually changes between one journal and the next.

What counts as grounds for an appeal

Large publishers' written appeal policies set similar bars. PLOS ONE's editorial process considers appeals only where a reviewer or editor is thought to have made a significant factual error, or where their objectivity may be compromised by a documented competing interest, and only if a reversal on either ground would change the original decision. Taylor & Francis asks for the same kind of material: evidence that a reviewer made technical errors in assessing the manuscript, or evidence that a reviewer may have a conflict of interest.

Grounds that can justify an appeal:

• A reviewer's central objection is contradicted by the manuscript itself, for example a claim that you did not adjust for a confounder that appears in your model and in the table reporting it.
• The decision rests on a misreading of the design, such as treating a prespecified secondary outcome as post hoc when the registered protocol shows otherwise.
• A reviewer or editor had a competing interest you can document, not merely suspect.

Grounds that usually will not:

• Disagreement about novelty, interest, or fit. Elsevier's appeals policy says appeals will not be considered where there is a difference of opinion on the interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the journal.
• Priority. Taylor & Francis notes that rejection often involves the editor's judgment of priority or importance, which authors usually cannot address through an appeal.
• Non-compliance with journal policies. Elsevier excludes these too, and PLOS may decline an appeal without review where integrity concerns contributed to the rejection.
• A discourteous review. Raise conduct with the journal as a concern about the process. On its own, rudeness does not show that the decision was wrong.

The one-question test

Write the error down in one sentence. Then ask: if the editor agreed with me on this point, would the decision change?

Suppose one reviewer says your trial was underpowered, and the editor's letter also says the conclusions overreach from a secondary endpoint. You can show the reviewer misread the sample size calculation. That is a genuine error, but the overreach point still stands, so correcting it leaves the decision intact. Revise the claims and go elsewhere.

Now suppose the letter says the paper was declined because the analysis did not account for clustering by site, and your methods section describes a mixed model with site as a random effect. The decision rests on a premise your manuscript contradicts. That is an appeal.

The same test settles the "only one reviewer was negative" question. Reviewers advise and editors decide; PLOS ONE describes its editors weighing reviewer feedback alongside their own evaluation. One negative report among positive ones is not a ground. It becomes one only if that report contains the decisive error.

How to appeal a journal rejection, step by step

1. Wait, then classify the rejection. Give yourself a few days, reread the letter and reports, and place the decision in the table above. Don't let it drift: Elsevier, for example, asks for appeals within one month of the decision.
2. Test whether the error was decisive. Apply the one-question test. If the answer is no, stop and move on.
3. Read the journal's appeal procedure and write down five things. For medical journals, the ICMJE Recommendations say journals should clearly state their appeals process, so look for it on the journal or publisher site, then note the channel, the required subject line or form, the deadline, whether your kind of rejection is eligible, and whether new data may be attached. Each of those differs between publishers: one may want a completed form sent to the editorial office rather than to an editor, another a tagged email to the handling editor.
4. Agree the appeal with every co-author. Elsevier requires all authors to agree and the corresponding author to submit. Where a journal is silent, do it anyway.
5. Write a short, evidence-based letter. The structure is below.
6. Send it through the named channel and hold the manuscript. Send it once, to the address given, and keep the paper off every other submission system until you have an answer: PLOS ONE and Elsevier both say a manuscript under appeal should not be submitted elsewhere, and Elsevier extends that to starting a transfer.
7. Act on the outcome. Plan on one attempt. Elsevier and Taylor & Francis consider one appeal per submission and treat the outcome as final, and PLOS ONE says decisions on appeals are final without exception, so put your whole case in the first letter rather than holding anything back.

What to put in a rejection appeal letter

Five short parts, in this order:

1. The request. Manuscript number, title, decision date, and one sentence asking the editor to reconsider.
2. The ground. The factual error or documented competing interest in one or two sentences, and why it was decisive.
3. The evidence, point by point. Quote each decisive comment verbatim, then show where the manuscript already answers it by section, line, table, supplementary file, or registry record. Elsevier asks for point-by-point responses to the comments that contributed to the rejection, with supporting evidence.
4. What you would change. If a reviewer misread something, your text may have allowed it. Offer a specific fix.
5. Declarations. All authors approve the appeal, and the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere.

A template you can adapt:

Subject: [Use the journal's required wording, for example "Appeal"] [Manuscript number]

Dear Dr [Editor surname],

We ask you to reconsider the decision of [date] on manuscript [number], "[Full title]."

The decision letter states that the paper was declined because [reason, in the editor's words]. We believe this rests on a factual error: [one sentence]. Because this was the basis for the decision, we respectfully request reconsideration.

Reviewer [number], comment [number]: "[verbatim comment]." The manuscript addresses this in [section, lines] and [table or figure]. [Protocol or registry reference, if relevant.]

That this point was misread suggests our description was not clear enough. If the manuscript is reconsidered, we will [specific change].

All authors have approved this appeal, and the manuscript is not under consideration at any other journal.

Sincerely, [Name], [Affiliation], [Institutional email]

Keep it to a page. If the letter runs longer than the reviews it answers, you are probably re-arguing the paper rather than identifying an error.

What to leave out

The register is the same as a good response to reviewers: calm, specific, and open to the possibility that your manuscript caused the misreading. How to Respond to Peer Review Comments covers that tone in detail.

How editors handle an appeal

Who looks at it. This varies by publisher:

• At Elsevier journals, the editor-in-chief or a designated representative, or Elsevier staff, depending on the nature of the appeal. Where a conflict of interest on the editor's part is alleged, a different editorial board member handles it.
• At PLOS ONE, at least one staff editor or editorial board member.
• At Taylor & Francis journals, the editor may involve associate editors who handled the original submission, or the publisher.
• At Nature Portfolio journals, the handling editor in the first instance, with final decisions on appeals resting with the editorial team.

How long it takes. There is no standard timeline. Nature Portfolio says priority goes to active submissions under consideration, so decisions on appeals may take longer, and Taylor & Francis says the review and decision process for new submissions takes precedence. Elsevier notes that the time varies with the journal, the field, and the complexity of the manuscript. If you have heard nothing well after the journal's usual time to first decision, one short, polite status query is reasonable.

What the outcome looks like. Either the rejection is upheld, which you should treat as final, or the manuscript is reconsidered. Reconsideration is not acceptance. Elsevier states that acceptance is not guaranteed and that the process may involve re-review by previous or new reviewers and substantive revision. Taylor & Francis lists confirming the rejection, inviting a revised manuscript, or seeking further peer or statistical review.

If you change your mind while waiting. Withdraw the appeal formally before sending the paper anywhere else. Elsevier, for example, lets the corresponding author withdraw by email with "Appeal withdrawal" and the manuscript number in the subject line.

Before you send the appeal

1. The journal's policy covers this kind of rejection, including desk rejections if that is what you received
2. You can state the error in one sentence
3. Correcting it would change the decision, not just one reviewer's opinion
4. Every point is backed by a section, line, table, protocol, or registry record
5. Nothing in the letter argues novelty, importance, or fit
6. Every co-author has read and approved the letter
7. You are inside the journal's deadline and using its channel, form, and subject line
8. The manuscript is not under consideration anywhere else

When the answer is still no

A declined appeal is not wasted if it showed you where your manuscript can be misread. Fix that passage first, because the next set of reviewers will stumble on it too. Then choose a journal whose scope genuinely fits, and write a cover letter that makes the fit argument plainly.

If you are weighing where to send the revised paper, you can read how Directive Publications describes its peer review process and check its author guidelines before you submit.