Write an editorial appeal around a specific concern the journal can check
Write an editorial appeal that connects a specific concern to the submitted record and a bounded request for reconsideration.
About 5 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Identify the decision you are appealing, explain the particular concern and point to the evidence that makes it relevant to reconsideration. An appeal needs a reason the editor can examine. Disappointment, the time invested in the manuscript or a stronger version of its original sales pitch does not by itself establish an error in the decision.
Read the journal’s current appeals procedure before drafting. Check who may submit, the permitted route, required material and any limits or deadlines. This guide concerns organising the wording of an appeal; it does not determine whether a review is scientifically correct, establish a right to reconsideration or predict acceptance.
Separate a checkable concern from disagreement
Read the decision and any reports together. Distinguish a statement about what the submitted manuscript contains from an editorial judgment about priority, relevance or strength. You may disagree with either, but the evidence needed to address them differs.
Taylor & Francis’s author guidance on appeals, checked on 3 November 2026, asks authors to explain the basis of an appeal and respond specifically to the comments behind the rejection, providing relevant evidence or new information. It also distinguishes concerns that evidence might address from editorial judgments about priority. Its procedure applies to that publisher’s journals; consult the current policy for the journal concerned.
Write a private working note containing the point you want reconsidered, where it appears in the decision and what record supports your concern. If you cannot state the connection clearly, investigate it before drafting a long rebuttal. Do not treat a brief or unwelcome decision as proof of misconduct.
Work through an original fictional submission record
The manuscript, identifier, decision and file contents below are invented teaching material. They describe no actual journal, author, reviewer or appeal.
Imagine a fictional manuscript, DEMO-58, comparing categories used in two sets of public notices. The authors’ retained submission package includes Appendix B, which defines the categories used in their analysis. A fictional decision says that no category definitions were supplied. Other concerns about the paper also appear in the decision.
Before writing, the authors check the actual submitted files rather than their newest local draft. They confirm that Appendix B was included in the retained submission record and identify the pages containing the definitions.
| Point to establish in the fictional exercise | Record to check | Limit on the claim |
|---|---|---|
| The decision identifies missing definitions | Exact wording in the decision | Do not substitute a broader accusation |
| Definitions were in the submitted package | Retained submission record and Appendix B | A later local addition would not establish this |
| The appendix addresses the stated concern | The actual definitions and their locations | Presence does not prove adequacy |
| Reconsideration is requested | The journal’s applicable procedure | The request does not reverse the decision |
An original draft paragraph could read:
We request reconsideration of the decision on DEMO-58 in relation to the statement that no category definitions were supplied. Appendix B, included in the retained submission package, contains the definitions on pages 2–3. Could you review whether that material addresses this concern? We recognise that its inclusion does not resolve the other concerns in the decision.
The paragraph identifies a bounded issue and a recoverable location. It does not claim that the reviewer never read the paper or that the appendix proves the manuscript deserves publication. The authors would need to address any other relevant points and follow the actual journal’s requirements for a complete appeal.
If checking reveals that Appendix B was added only after rejection, the appeal cannot truthfully say it was submitted originally. Describe any new material accurately, where the applicable procedure permits it, instead of rewriting the history of the submission.
Make the explanation easy to follow
Use the manuscript identifier and decision date from the actual record. Briefly state the requested reconsideration, then organise the relevant points in a sequence the editor can trace. Quote only the wording needed to identify a concern and give precise references to the supporting material.
Keep the tone professional and the claims proportionate. Explain an apparent factual mismatch without guessing at another person’s motives. Do not invent a conflict of interest, technical defect or procedural failure to strengthen the request. A claim requiring specialist assessment needs the corresponding evidence and expertise.
Distinguish submitted material from proposed changes throughout. An appeal letter, a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response can serve different purposes. Supply the documents the current procedure actually requests; do not assume that sending a revision automatically opens an appeal.
Verify the finished request
Compare every statement with the decision, submission record and supporting documents. Check identifiers, version labels, page references and any claim that material was present at the time of review. Follow the journal’s route and limits rather than repeatedly contacting different people in search of a different outcome.
For work that needs revision, the feedback-to-revision guide helps convert concerns into checkable changes. If you later consider another journal, check its scope before adapting the paper. A clear appeal can make a concern examinable; the editorial decision remains with the journal.
