14. Rejected Articles – Appeals

Purpose

The Pakistan Journal of Gastroenterology (PJG) is committed to ensuring a fair, transparent, and impartial editorial process. Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision if they believe that a manuscript was rejected due to a misunderstanding, procedural error, or an incorrect scientific assessment.

The appeals process is intended to ensure that editorial decisions are reviewed objectively while maintaining the independence and integrity of the peer-review process.

This policy is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

14.1 Right to Appeal

Authors may submit an appeal against an editorial decision if they believe that:

  • The manuscript was misunderstood during peer review.
  • A factual or scientific error influenced the decision.
  • Reviewer comments contained significant inaccuracies.
  • The editorial process was affected by procedural irregularities.

Appeals should be based on scientific evidence rather than disagreement with reviewers' opinions alone.

14.2 How to Submit an Appeal

Appeals must be submitted by the Corresponding Author through the Journal's official submission system or by email to the Editorial Office.

The appeal should include:

  • Manuscript title.
  • Manuscript identification number.
  • Date of the editorial decision.
  • Detailed explanation of the reasons for the appeal.
  • Point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.
  • Supporting scientific evidence, where applicable.

14.3 Appeal Review Process

Upon receipt of an appeal, the Editorial Office will:

  • Acknowledge receipt of the appeal.
  • Review the appeal for completeness.
  • Forward the appeal to the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Senior Editor.

Where appropriate, the manuscript may be:

  • Reassessed by the original handling editor.
  • Evaluated by an independent editor.
  • Sent to one or more additional independent reviewers.

The review will focus on the scientific merits of the appeal and the fairness of the editorial process.

14.4 Editorial Decision on Appeal

Following review of the appeal, one of the following decisions may be made:

  • Appeal accepted and manuscript returned for further peer review.
  • Appeal accepted with a request for revision.
  • Original rejection decision upheld.
  • Manuscript rejected with a final editorial decision.

The decision of the Editor-in-Chief after the appeal process shall be considered final.

14.5 Timeframe for Appeals

Authors are encouraged to submit an appeal within 30 days of receiving the rejection decision.

Appeals submitted after this period may be considered at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

The Journal aims to communicate the outcome of an appeal within 4–8 weeks, although this period may vary depending on the complexity of the case.

14.6 Grounds That Are Not Considered Appeals

The following circumstances generally do not constitute valid grounds for appeal:

  • Disagreement with reviewers' opinions without supporting scientific evidence.
  • Submission of substantially revised or new data that were not included in the original manuscript.
  • Dissatisfaction with the Journal's scope or editorial priorities.
  • Requests for reconsideration without adequate justification.

Authors wishing to submit substantially revised work may be advised to submit it as a new manuscript.

14.7 Confidentiality

All appeal proceedings will be treated confidentially.

Appeal documents, reviewer reports, editorial discussions, and correspondence will only be shared with individuals directly involved in the evaluation of the appeal.

14.8 Ethical Considerations

If an appeal raises concerns regarding:

  • Reviewer misconduct.
  • Editorial bias.
  • Conflicts of interest.
  • Research misconduct.
  • Breaches of publication ethics.

The Journal may conduct an independent investigation in accordance with its Publication Ethics Policy and COPE guidance.

14.9 Policy Compliance

Submission of an appeal indicates that the Corresponding Author confirms:

  • The information provided is accurate.
  • The appeal is made in good faith.
  • All authors have been informed of the appeal.
  • The appeal is supported by scientific evidence where appropriate.

Repeated, abusive, or frivolous appeals may not be considered.

References

This policy has been developed in accordance with:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – Core Practices and Appeals and Complaints Guidance.
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations.
  • World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Recommendations.