You have read the decision letter eleven times. Reviewer 1's report is three paragraphs of method criticism you accept. Reviewer 2's report contains one sentence that is factually wrong about your manuscript: it says no ethics approval was reported, and the approval number is in the second line of the Methods.
That sentence is the only thing in the letter an appeal can touch.
An appeal asks an editor to correct the record a decision rested on. One that argues with the judgement gives an editor nothing to check.
An appeal is not a resubmission, a revision or a second opinion — what it actually asks for
- A resubmission offers a changed manuscript. The old decision is not disputed.
- A revision answers comments on a manuscript still in play; a rejection ended that.
- An appeal leaves the manuscript untouched: here is the error in the record, here is the proof.
If the record is accurate there is nothing to revisit.
Read the decision letter twice: once for the judgement, once for statements of fact about your manuscript
Read it again a day later, sorting every sentence into two piles.
- Judgement. "The contribution is incremental." The handling editor's to make, wrong or not.
- Statement of fact about the manuscript. "No ethics approval is reported." The manuscript settles it.
Only the second pile is appealable, and only where the text disproves the sentence outright. If you have to interpret, it is unclear writing, not an error.
The three grounds that can work: a factual error about the manuscript, a reviewer who read a different version or held an undisclosed conflict, a process failure
Three, and only three: a report contradicted by the paper itself; a report on a study that is not yours, such as a randomised trial when you ran a cohort; a process failure, such as a review that names you in a double-blind process. The table below gives the wording for each.
The six grounds that never work, and why each one reads as an argument with the verdict
| The ground, as you would phrase it | Can it succeed, and why | What to write instead |
|---|---|---|
| "No ethics approval was reported" — but it is in the Methods. | Appealable. A statement of fact the manuscript disproves. | Quote the report line, then the Methods line. |
| "The reviewer describes a randomised trial; ours is a cohort." | Appealable. A report on another study has not assessed yours. | Quote both descriptions; ask for that report to be set aside. |
| "The review names me." "The reviewer has an undisclosed competing interest." | Appealable. A process failure the editor needs to know. | Quote what is visible; infer nothing about who wrote it. |
| "The reviewers did not understand the clinical context." | Not appealable. Clarity is the author's job. | Rewrite the context paragraphs for the next submission. |
| "The sample is small, but the condition is rare." | Not appealable. A defence of the design, already weighed. | Strengthen the limitations, or pick a fitting article type. |
| "Reviewer 2 was harsh." | Not appealable. A report can be blunt and correct. | Raise abuse or a breach of confidentiality separately with the editorial office, as a conduct concern rather than an appeal. |
| "The study took two years." | Not appealable. Effort is not evidence. | Delete it. It belongs in no letter to any editor. |
| "Another journal published something similar." | Not appealable. Scope and novelty are the editor's call. | Save it for your next cover letter. |
| "We can add the analysis reviewer 1 asked for." | Not appealable. A revision offer, not an appeal. | Ask whether a revised manuscript would be a new submission. |
Decide whether the appeal is worth the calendar time it will cost you
Nothing is paid yet: submission is free, and the article processing charge falls due only if and when a manuscript is formally accepted. The cost is calendar time: while an appeal is open the manuscript is with nobody, here or elsewhere.
- Can you point to a sentence that is untrue about your manuscript, and quote the text that disproves it? If not, do not appeal.
- Would correcting it change what the handling editor had in front of them? If the decision was driven by something else, do not appeal.
- Can you make the case on one page without arguing with the verdict once? If not, you do not yet have an appeal.
- If any answer is no: submit elsewhere this week instead. A failed appeal costs you the whole time it is open, and the manuscript is under consideration nowhere while it runs.
Our published route: the appeal goes to the Editor-in-Chief — and what we do not publish about it
What we publish about review and appeals is short, and it sits across Peer Review and Editorial Policies. Peer review is double-blind. At least two independent expert reviewers are sought for a research manuscript. The handling editor decides, not the reviewers, as the handling editor's role explains. Appeals go to the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. Our policies align with COPE Core Practices.
Some things you might expect are not published, and we would rather say so than let you infer them: there is no published deadline for lodging an appeal, no timeline for a reply, and no rule on whether the original reviewers are consulted again, whether a further reviewer is sought, or whether a committee sits. The template below therefore asks for acknowledgement, and this post does not predict one.
The appeal letter: one page, one ground per paragraph, evidence quoted rather than described
By email to the editorial office.
Subject: Appeal — [Manuscript ID] — [short title]
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
I am writing on behalf of all authors to appeal the decision of [date] on manuscript [ID]. This is a formal appeal, not a resubmission, and the manuscript is unchanged. I am not asking for the judgement to be revisited, but for two statements of fact to be corrected.
1. Reviewer 2 states: "[quote verbatim]". The manuscript states, in Methods, paragraph 2, lines 4-5: "[quote verbatim]". The information recorded as absent is present.
2. Reviewer 2 describes the study as "[quote verbatim]". The design is stated in the Abstract, line 3: "[quote verbatim]". The report appears to assess a different design.
I request that the decision be reconsidered with reviewer 2's report set aside, or that a further independent review be sought. Reviewer 1's report is not disputed.
I would be grateful for acknowledgement of receipt. I understand the decision may stand and accept that outcome.
Yours sincerely,
[Name, on behalf of all authors]
What not to write: six sentences to delete on sight
- "We paid to submit this manuscript." Nothing is paid at submission and nothing is owed on rejection.
- "This work took two years." Time spent is not a finding about the manuscript.
- "As a professor with X publications, I..." Seniority is not a ground, and it counted for nothing in a blinded review.
- "The journal has an obligation to..." Turns a correction into a dispute.
- "Reviewer 2 was unqualified and hostile." Tone, unless you can quote a breach.
- "Please reconsider our manuscript." No action named, so nothing to do.
What outcomes are actually available to an editor on appeal, including the one nobody warns you about
- The decision stands.
- The record is corrected and the decision stands anyway — the editor agrees the sentence was wrong and explains that the decision did not rest on it.
- A report is set aside and the decision reconsidered on what remains.
- A further review is sought, which an editor may do but need not.
- You are invited to resubmit as a new submission.
No appeal produces an acceptance; one that succeeds returns the manuscript to assessment. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final, so build the one appeal properly.
If the appeal fails, or you decide not to make one: what to carry into the next submission
Reviewer 1's criticism did not become wrong because reviewer 2 made an error. Responding to reviewer comments covers the method, and handling a rejection covers the days after the letter.
Then submit. You have nothing to volunteer about a rejected manuscript: it was never published, so there is no prior version in the literature and no obligation to raise the earlier decision unasked. If the new journal's submission form asks whether the work has been submitted or reviewed elsewhere, answer honestly. That is not concealment; it is the ordinary state of an unpublished paper. Write a fresh cover letter for the new journal.
Our policies are set out in Peer Review and Editorial Policies. See also handling a rejection and responding to reviewer comments.