Author Appeals Policy

ACADEMIA Nextgen Management Journal (ANMJ)

At ANMJ, we are committed to a fair, transparent, and academically rigorous peer review process. We recognize that authors may occasionally disagree with editorial decisions and may wish to request a formal reconsideration. This policy outlines a structured and ethical framework for handling appeals, ensuring that all concerns are reviewed with integrity, impartiality, and respect for scholarly standards.

1. Valid Grounds for Appeal

Authors may submit a formal appeal if they believe that:

  • The editorial decision was influenced by a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the manuscript’s content, findings, or data

  • Reviewer comments or editorial evaluations contain factual inaccuracies that may have adversely affected the decision

  • There is credible evidence of conflict of interest, bias, or a violation of editorial ethics or procedures

⚠️ Appeals must be evidence-based. Disagreements with reviewer opinions—without substantive justification—will not typically be considered grounds for appeal.

2. Submitting an Appeal

Timeframe

Authors must submit a formal appeal within 20 calendar days of receiving the editorial decision. Appeals submitted beyond this period may not be reviewed unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

How to Submit

Appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief using the official contact form on the ANMJ website. The appeal must include:

  • A formal letter clearly stating the grounds for appeal

  • A point-by-point response addressing reviewer/editor comments

  • Any evidence or data clarifying the author's position

  • An optional revised manuscript (marked with tracked changes), if the appeal includes proposed improvements

3. Appeal Review Process

Upon receipt of the appeal:

Initial Editorial Review

The Editor-in-Chief will evaluate the original manuscript, reviewer reports, and appeal documentation. Feedback may be sought from the original handling editor or a senior editorial advisor.

Further Evaluation (If Necessary)

Depending on the nature of the appeal, the Editor-in-Chief may:

  • Seek a second opinion from independent reviewers

  • Re-engage original reviewers with the author’s responses

  • Consult with an independent editorial board member for internal review

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief will issue a final decision, which may result in:

  • Upholding the original rejection

  • Inviting a revised resubmission

  • Accepting the manuscript (with or without further revisions)

A written explanation will be provided to the authors outlining the rationale behind the final decision.

4. Appeal Limitations

  • Only one appeal per manuscript is permitted

  • Appeals are evaluated solely on merit, not on persuasion or persistence

  • Repeated, baseless, or abusive appeals will not be entertained and may lead to blacklisting from future submissions

5. Ethical Considerations

If the appeal involves claims of editorial misconduct, reviewer bias, or conflict of interest, the case will be escalated to the ANMJ Ethics Committee for investigation. Corrective actions may include:

  • Reassigning the manuscript to a different editor or reviewer

  • Conducting a formal inquiry, following COPE guidelines

  • Implementing editorial process improvements or disciplinary actions if misconduct is confirmed

6. Communication and Timeline

  • Acknowledgment: Appeals will be acknowledged within 5 business days

  • Review Duration: A full response will be provided within 4 to 8 weeks, depending on the complexity of the case

By offering a transparent and structured appeal process, ANMJ ensures that every author is treated with fairness and academic respect, while upholding the journal’s commitment to editorial excellence and ethical publishing.