Author Appeal Policy

Trends in Medical and Biological Sciences (TMBS)

At Trends in Medical and Biological Sciences (TMBS), we are committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, and rigorous peer-review process. We recognize that authors may occasionally disagree with editorial decisions and may have valid grounds for requesting reconsideration. This policy provides authors with a clear, ethical, and structured pathway to appeal decisions while upholding the journal’s academic integrity and publication standards.

1. Valid Grounds for Appeal

Authors may submit a formal appeal if they believe that:

  • The editorial decision was based on a substantial misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the manuscript’s content or data.

  • Reviewer feedback or editorial handling contained factual inaccuracies that may have influenced the outcome.

  • Evidence suggests a conflict of interest, reviewer/editorial bias, or a breach of ethical standards.

⚠️ Note: Appeals must be supported by clear evidence. Appeals based only on disagreement with reviewer opinions, without justification, will not normally 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 submitted after this period may only be considered in exceptional circumstances.

Formal Written Appeal

The appeal must be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief via the official journal contact page.
The appeal letter must:

  • Clearly state the grounds for appeal.

  • Identify specific errors or ethical concerns.

  • Respond to reviewer/editor comments where applicable.

  • Provide evidence (e.g., clarifications, additional data) to support reconsideration.

Revised Manuscript (Optional)

If appropriate, authors may submit:

  • A marked-up version of the manuscript highlighting proposed changes.

  • A detailed response document explaining how the revision addresses reviewer/editor concerns.

3. Appeal Review Process

  1. Initial Editorial Assessment

    • The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal, original manuscript, decision history, and may consult the handling editor or senior editorial advisors.

  2. Additional Review (if required)

    • The Editor-in-Chief may:

      • Refer the manuscript (with author responses) to the original reviewers.

      • Assign new, independent reviewers who had no prior involvement.

      • Request a neutral editorial board member to provide an internal review.

  3. Final Editorial Decision

    • Based on findings, the Editor-in-Chief will decide to:

      • Uphold the original rejection.

      • Invite revision and resubmission.

      • Accept the manuscript (with or without further changes).

    • Authors will receive a written explanation of the final decision.

4. Appeal Limitations

  • Only one appeal per manuscript is permitted.

  • Appeals are evaluated strictly on merit; there is no guarantee of reversal.

  • Repeated, unsubstantiated, or inappropriate appeals will not be considered.

5. Ethical Considerations

If the appeal raises concerns of ethical misconduct (e.g., reviewer bias, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or editorial errors), the matter will be escalated to the Editorial Ethics Committee.

Corrective actions may include:

  • Reassigning the manuscript to a different editor or review panel.

  • Conducting a formal investigation following 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 normally resolved within 4–8 weeks, depending on complexity.