Notice:

This appeals process is tentative, only experimental (to be evaluated in 12 months) and subject to subsequent modification based the success of this procedure during implementation, comments from the Area Editors (AE’s) and other feedback.

The Appeals Process at Marketing Science:

Obviously, no process is perfect. Occasionally, reviewers or AE's will make errors in their reviews.  The editor and the AE may fail to catch these errors. Although it is unlikely 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 all 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 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 every 36 months (for appeals concerning contribution), every 24 months (for appeals concerning errors in evaluative judgment) and every 6 months (for appeals concerning factual errors).

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 no sooner than 16 days and no later than 60 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 by postal mail and received 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.   Appeals 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 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 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.  However, the identity may be revealed to a new AE 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 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 will provide the appeals judge's new review as well as the previous reviews to a new area editor (AE). The new AE 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 makes a decision based on the new report and the authors will receive the new review as well as the new AE report.


The editor (Steve Shugan) would like to thank the many individuals who provided ideas for an appeals process. In particular, the editor thanks John D.C. Little, Brian Ratchford, Greg Allenby, Barbara E. Kahn, Richard Staelin, Gary L. Lilien, John R. Hauser, Sridhar Moothy, Subrata Sen, Barton Weitz and Donald Morrison.

Comments on the Marketing Science website are welcome ( marketingscience@cba.ufl.edu).  ©2003 University of Florida

Master Index.