FAQs
FAQ: Appeals
What is the definition of an appeal?
An appeal is the an authors’ request to reconsider an editorial decision, especially the rejection of a manuscript. Authors may opt to appeal following editorial rejections (“desk rejections”) and also following rejections after peer review.
When does it make sense to appeal an editorial rejection?
Appeals of editorial rejections are not often successful, and editors must prioritize first submissions over appeals, which means that authors might experience a delay of two weeks until they receive a final decision.
Appeals based on disagreements about novelty, significance, or breadth of potential relevance are rarely successful and seldomly a wise investment of authors' efforts. Appeals regarding strength of evidence are very occasionally successful, and only if editors misjudged methodological aspects of the work (for example the existence of control conditions).
However, where an editorial rejection based on concerns about strength of evidence is met with an appeal that includes additional data or pivotal additional analyses, the probability of editors revising their initial decision is higher. This is provided that strength of evidence was the main reason for rejection, and that the new empirical work addresses these concerns.
How can authors appeal editorial rejections?
Authors may send an appeal to the journal’s central email address commpsychol@nature.com. This appeal consists of a cover letter, detailing why they believe the editor’s judgment was misguided, or why they believe the editor might want to revise their decision in light of additional information. Where it is apparent to authors how the misunderstanding came about, and especially if the authors provide further evidence in support of their interpretation, it is strongly recommended to attach a revised manuscript file to clarify the issue that they feel was misunderstood, or underappreciated.
Appeals are then uploaded to the central manuscript handling system and authors will receive a final decision via email. The chief editor is involved in all appeal decisions.
When does it make sense to appeal a rejection post review?
Appeals of decisions following peer review are only likely to be successful if the authors can demonstrate that they can address the referees’ concerns that led to the rejection of the paper.
Authors are most likely to successfully appeal rejections post-review when the work was rejected because a significant amount of additional work would be necessary, and authors have completed or are willing to undertake the work. Editors typically reject work where the amount of additional work appears overly burdensome on authors, so that authors may publish their work elsewhere. However, where authors are already in possession of the required data, or willing to collect it despite the significant effort involved, it makes sense to appeal the rejection.
Occasionally, referees’ assessments contain errors of fact, for example, misinterpretations of the experimental design, or the nature of the data. If this is apparent, and the rejection was driven by these concerns, it is reasonable to appeal. It is important to keep in mind that misreadings by experts are often at least partly driven by a lack of clarity in the presentation of the work, and it is strongly recommended to revise the presentation of the key methodological aspects.
In extremely rare cases, where reviewers were biased against the work in a way not obvious to the editor, it may make sense to appeal; for example, editors may have been unaware that a reviewer has commenced work on the exact same research question and therefore has a strong conflict of interest and expressed deep but unfair concerns about the merit of the research or the advance it presents. This may be known to authors, who may then raise the issue in an appeal.
As for editorial rejections, disagreements about the significance of the work are very unlikely to lead to successful appeals. As the evaluation of appeals cannot be prioritized over work on new submissions or invited revisions, such appeals are not advisable in the interest of authors’ time.
How can authors appeal rejections after review?
Authors are advised to contact the editorial office at commpsychol@nature.com before submitting an appeal, to gauge the probability of successfully appealing. This email should contain a cover letter explaining why they believe the editors would revise their previous decision in light of new information.
The handling editor or chief editor will respond to the author and either encourage the submission of an appeal or recommend the authors seek publication elsewhere.
If authors are invited to submit an appeal, they email the appeal consisting of a cover letter, a point-by-point response to the referees, and a revised manuscript to commpsychol@nature.com. Editors will decide whether the appeal merits re-review based on this complete set of files. The chief editor is involved in all appeal decisions. Authors are advised that the point-by-point reply will be shared with the referees if the manuscript is sent back out to review. It will also form part of the public peer-review record if the manuscript is eventually published.
Are appeals sent back to the same referees?
Usually, appeals will be sent back to the same referees, and potentially additional experts to provide extra feedback where needed. In cases of suspected reviewer bias, the other referees will be asked to assess the quality of the review in question.
What are the top ingredients of a strong appeal?
New data or analyses that speak to the core concerns
Sincere revisions that prevent future misunderstandings
Scientific, evidence-based arguments in the correspondence with editors and reviewers
Professional tone
What do poor appeals look like?
Ad hominem attacks directed at referees or editors
References to the authors’ status and accolades
Changes to the hypothesis
Insincere cosmetic revisions
FAQ: Transparent peer review
What is transparent peer review?
All research, review, and opinion papers published in Communications Psychology will have a peer review file containing the editorial decision letters, reviewer comments to the authors and the author rebuttal letters published alongside the article.
Why has Communications Psychology implemented this scheme?
We hope that publishing peer review files for all our research, review, and opinion articles will make the peer review process more transparent, and it may also facilitate a deeper understanding of the research that we publish. Transparent peer review also creates a useful resource for students and early career researchers looking for information on how the peer review system operates. For our peer reviewers, it has the benefit that if they wish to refer to, or share, one of their reviews, they can do so easily.
The system is already used successfully by a number of other publishers across several research areas.
Implementation of transparent peer review at Communications Psychology draws on years of experience with transparent peer review in our Nature Portfolio sister journals, for example, Nature Communications and Nature Human Behaviour.
Can peer reviewers opt out?
Peer reviewers are informed of this initiative when invited to review and can decline to review the manuscript if they are not comfortable with their review being published. Acceptance to review is regarded as permission to release the reports.
However, given that their review will be anonymous if they choose not to sign their report we hope that they will not choose to decline a review invite. Reviewers also have the option to make confidential comments on the manuscript to the editor if they would like, although we would prefer that, in the interest of transparency, this is avoided. Any comments that the authors need to address in revision should be made in the ‘comments to the authors’ section of the reviewer’s report.
Are reviewer names published?
No. Unless reviewers sign the comments to the authors with their name, we will respect and maintain their full anonymity under all circumstances. However, if they would like, reviewers can request that their name be added to their comments at any point, up to and including receipt of a notification that the manuscript has been accepted in principle.
Does this apply to manuscripts that have been peer reviewed elsewhere?
Authors sometimes transfer manuscripts between our journals. If a manuscript has been transferred to Communications Psychology after peer review at another Nature portfolio journal, then we will receive those reviewer reports. However, these reports and the author responses to them will not be included in our peer review files, as those reports were submitted to the other journal without consent to potential publication. If the same reviewers subsequently agree to review for us, only their reviewer reports for Communications Psychology will be included in the published peer review file. Instances of transferred manuscripts that were previously peer reviewed will be marked up in the peer review file, without naming the other journal.
What if an author wants the peer review file to be edited pre-publication?
The peer review files will contain the full decision letters, reviewer reports to authors, and the author rebuttal letters. The only exception is the disclosure of confidential data provided to editors or reviewers, which authors will be able to suggest for redaction. Redactions will be noted in the peer review files.
What are the limitations of transparent peer review?
The reviewer reports are taken into consideration when the editorial team decides whether to accept, reject or ask for changes to a manuscript, but just reading the peer review reports will not necessarily give a reader the complete picture of the decision-making process. For example, authors are encouraged to contact editors via email to ask questions about required revisions, or the possibility to appeal a decision. Such conversations will not appear in the peer review reports. Likewise, reviewer comments made confidentially to editors, and internal discussions between editors will remain confidential. A paper might be published against the advice of a reviewer, if for example we receive confidential feedback from other reviewers that overall favours publication. These discussions might not always be fully captured in peer review files, although the explanation given to the author will be apparent from the editorial decision letter and we may add editorial explanations to some of the files.
Will you publish your editorial decision letters?
Yes. Editors make informed decisions based on referee reports, and frequently provide authors with guidance on which referee comments they consider to be the most important to address. This kind of editorial influence over the revision process will become apparent from making the editorial decision letters publicly available with the published manuscripts.
