Author Appeals Policy

ApexMed – Journal of Health Sciences

At ApexMed, we uphold a transparent, impartial, and rigorous peer review process. We recognize that authors may occasionally disagree with editorial decisions and may have valid reasons to request reconsideration. This policy provides authors with a structured, fair, and ethical pathway to appeal decisions while maintaining the journal’s academic integrity and publication standards.

1. Valid Grounds for Appeal

Authors may submit a formal appeal if they believe:

The decision was based on a substantial misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the manuscript’s content or data.
Factual inaccuracies in reviewer feedback or editorial handling may have influenced the outcome.
Evidence suggests a conflict of interest, reviewer/editorial bias, or breach of ethical standards.

❗ Appeals must be evidence-based. Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewer opinions, without clear justification, are unlikely to be considered.

2. Submitting an Appeal

To initiate an appeal, authors must:

Timeframe

Submit the appeal within 20 calendar days of receiving the decision notification.
Appeals received after this window may not be considered unless exceptional circumstances apply.

Formal Written Appeal

Address the appeal to the Editor-in-Chief via the official journal contact form: Contact Us
The appeal letter must:
- Clearly state the reason for the appeal.
- Identify specific factual errors or ethical concerns.
- Respond to key reviewer/editor comments where applicable.
- Include evidence (e.g., clarifications, supporting data) to justify reconsideration.

Revised Manuscript (Optional)

If relevant, authors may submit a marked-up version of the manuscript showing proposed changes and a response document outlining how the revision addresses reviewer concerns.

3. Appeal Review Process

Once the appeal is received:

Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal, original manuscript, and decision history.
Input may be sought from the handling editor or senior editorial advisors to assess the validity of the appeal.

Additional Review (If Required)

The Editor-in-Chief may:
- Refer the manuscript to original reviewers (with author responses).
- Assign new, independent reviewers with no prior involvement.
- Request an internal review by a neutral editorial board member.

Final Editorial Decision

A final decision will be made based on review findings and journal policy. Outcomes may include:
- Upholding the original rejection.
- Inviting revision and resubmission.
- Accepting the manuscript (with or without further changes).
Authors will receive a written explanation of the final outcome.

4. Appeal Limitations

One appeal per manuscript is permitted.
No guarantee of reversal: Appeals are evaluated strictly on merit and in accordance with the journal’s editorial standards.
Repeated or unsubstantiated appeals will not be entertained.

5. Ethical Considerations

If the appeal suggests ethical misconduct (e.g., reviewer bias, undisclosed conflicts, or procedural lapses), the matter will be escalated to an independent editorial ethics committee.

Corrective actions may include:

Reassigning the manuscript to a new editor/review panel.
Launching a formal investigation per COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

6. Communication and Timeline

Acknowledgment: Authors will receive confirmation of receipt within 5 business days.
Review Period: Appeals are typically resolved within 4–8 weeks, depending on complexity.

Author Appeals Policy