Opinion is subjective and decisions may often cause conflict of views. The reviewers form recommendations based on their personal review of the manuscript. They assess internal consistency, scientific validity and alignment with the scope of the journal. The editor takes the recommendations into account but is not bound by them and again assesses the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Even then the decision may hang in the balance. The Editors-in-Chief decision is final. Remember that we publish our articles for our readership considering their requirements and interests. Our publications should aid and educate decision makers
OAPL does welcome only serious appeals. If you believe as a submitting author that we have rejected your manuscript in error e.g. due to a misunderstanding of its scientific content, we then would be open to an appeal. This should be in the form of a letter (not a revised version), which details the basis of your claim in a logical and coherent manner. If we agree we may invite you to submit a revised version to enter into the peer review process. This again is not a guarantee of final publications since the manuscript may still be rejected at any stage.
It is intuitive that appeals letters suggesting a re-clarification and re-analysis of data would be more successful than those disputing simple editorial decisions. OAPL will only consider one appeal per manuscript. OAPL will not enter into protracted negotiation which we have found not to be satisfactory for any party.
Appeals can be emailed to Editor@oapublishinglondon.com