Author Appeals Policy

ComputeX – Journal of Emerging Technology & Applied Science

At ComputeX, we uphold a transparent, impartial, and rigorous peer review process. We acknowledge 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, data, or methodology.

  • 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 strong justification, are unlikely to be considered.

2. Submitting an Appeal

Timeframe

  • Appeals must be submitted within 20 calendar days of receiving the decision notification.

  • Appeals received after this period may not be considered unless exceptional circumstances apply.

Formal Written Appeal

  • Appeals should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal’s official contact system.

  • The appeal letter must:

    • Clearly outline the reason for the appeal.

    • Identify specific factual errors or ethical concerns.

    • Respond to reviewer/editor comments where applicable.

    • Include evidence (e.g., clarifications, supporting data, or technical documentation).

Revised Manuscript (Optional)

  • Authors may optionally submit:

    • A marked-up version of the manuscript with proposed revisions.

    • A detailed response document addressing reviewer/editor concerns.

3. Appeal Review Process

Initial Editorial Assessment

  • The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal, original manuscript, and decision history.

  • Consultation with the handling editor or senior advisors may occur to assess validity.

Additional Review (If Required)
The Editor-in-Chief may:

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

  • Assign new, independent reviewers with expertise in emerging technology or applied science.

  • Request an internal evaluation by an impartial editorial board member.

Final Editorial Decision

  • Based on review findings, outcomes may include:

    • Upholding the original rejection.

    • Inviting revision and resubmission.

    • Accepting the manuscript (with or without modifications).

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

4. Appeal Limitations

  • Only one appeal per manuscript is permitted.

  • Appeals are considered strictly on merit and relevance to journal standards.

  • Multiple or unsupported appeals will not be entertained.

5. Ethical Considerations

  • Appeals raising issues of editorial or reviewer misconduct (bias, conflict of interest, or procedural lapses) will be escalated to the Editorial Ethics Committee.

  • Corrective measures may include:

    • Reassigning the manuscript to a new review panel.

    • Conducting a formal investigation in line with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards.

6. Communication and Timeline

  • Acknowledgment: Authors will be notified of receipt of their appeal within 5 business days.

  • Review Period: Appeals are usually resolved within 4–8 weeks, depending on complexity and review needs.

 This process ensures that appeals are handled fairly, transparently, and consistently, while upholding the scholarly and scientific standards of ComputeX – Journal of Emerging Technology & Applied Science.