Appeal Process

Occasionally, Reviewers or Associate Editors will make errors in their reviews. The Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editor may fail to catch these errors. Although it is unlikely that an error would impact the final decision on a manuscript, the possibility exists. Therefore, we do allow authors to appeal decisions.

Authors should never appeal decisions only because they disagree with the outcome or feel that the evaluators merely lacked appreciation for what they have done (evaluators are often chosen from the author’s recommendations). Moreover, authors should never appeal on the grounds that their standing in the discipline accords them some special treatment. We give all authors equal opportunity and maintain a double-blind review process. However, if the reviewers or evaluators have made errors that can be documented, authors can and should appeal decisions under the following procedure.

1. The appealing authors must complete the Appeals Form and all authors must sign the form.

2. Every author on an appealed manuscript is allowed a maximum of one appeal per year. The journal does not have the capacity to handle more than this number, formally. Clearly, informal appeals to the Editor-in-Chief are expected.

3. Identities of appealing authors will become part of the journal record and known to future editors.

4. An electronic copy of the appeals form must be sent by e-mail to the Editor-in-Chief no sooner than 30 days and no later than 180 days after the date of the decision letter on the manuscript.

5. The copy of the appeals form signed by all authors must be sent before the appeal begins.

6. The appeals form must be complete and quote each evaluator statement that is in error and explain why the statement is incorrect.

7. Authors who appeal must provide the names of three senior people of impeccable quality whose judgment the appealing authors (or author) trust. These senior people will be nominating judges and must meet criteria (8 through 12 below).

8. The nominating judges must be either tenured faculty or practitioners with no business relationship with any of the authors.

9. The nominating judges must currently be in a marketing or similar department, previously taught in marketing or be a practitioner with an advanced degree and significant experience in marketing.

10. The nominating judges must not currently be at the same or home university or firm as any of the manuscript’s authors.

11. The nominating judges must not be or have been on the dissertation committees of any of the authors.

12. The nominating judges must not be current or past students of any of the authors.

13. The authors must contact each of the proposed nominating judges and insure that each judge is willing to be part of the appeals process.

14. Each of the three nominating judges supplies three names to the Editor-in-Chief as candidates for the appeals judge. These candidates must meet the same standards (items 8 through 12) as the nominating judges. The nominating judges must contact these candidates to insure each candidate is willing to participate in the appeal and that they have not already been chosen by another nominating judge.

15. The Editor-in-Chief selects the appeals judge from the nine candidates at random (i.e., each is assigned a random number and the highest number is chosen to be asked first). Hence, the identity of the appeals judge initially is kept anonymous to everyone except to the Editor-in-Chief. However, the identity may be revealed to a new Associate Editor as prescribed below.

16. The appeals judge (who is indirectly chosen by the authors) is first asked to review all the facts of the case. If the appeals judge finds the authors' case has no merit, the appeals judge notifies the Editor-in-Chief and the original decision stands. If the appeals judge finds the authors' case has merit, the judge will review the paper. If the appeal judge’s review recommends that the manuscript should be published, the Editor-in-Chief will provide the appeals judge's new review as well as the previous reviews to a new Associate Editor. The new Associate Editor will make a new report. If the appeals judge's review recommends rejection despite the merit of the appeal, the original decision stands.

17. Finally, the Editor-in-Chief makes a decision based on the new report and the authors will receive the new review as well as the new Associate Editor report.