Reviews Were Inadequate
The reviews were not substantive, raised questionable concerns, or gave vague or inadequate reasons for not recommending journal publication.
ASME Turbo Expo Author Resources
Appeal Process for the Journal of Turbomachinery
Guidance for authors appealing a Turbo Expo conference-review decision not to recommend a paper for publication in the Journal of Turbomachinery.
Who Should Use This Process?
This process applies to papers originally reviewed through the Turbo Expo conference review process that were not recommended for publication in the Journal of Turbomachinery.
Appeal Criteria
When an Appeal May Be Appropriate
An appeal should present a specific, evidence-based reason for reconsidering the journal recommendation.
Revisions Were Not Re-Reviewed
The paper was revised to address reviewer concerns, but reviewers did not evaluate whether the revised paper was appropriate for journal publication.
Moderate Revisions Were Completed
The authors made moderate revisions after the review process and believe those changes satisfy the reviewers’ concerns.
Required Materials
Prepare Your Appeal
A complete appeal must explain its basis, address the reviews, and provide a clearly marked version of the revised paper.
Prepare a Detailed Appeal Document
Explain why the conference decision should be reconsidered. Connect the appeal to one or more of the eligibility criteria above and be specific about the basis for the request.
- Respond to each reviewer comment.
- Identify the changes made to address each concern.
- Provide a clear rebuttal when a recommendation was not adopted.
- Explain why the paper has archival value despite the original recommendation.
Prepare the Revised Paper
Provide the final version of the paper with changes clearly highlighted so the editor and reviewers can identify the revisions.
Share