Reply
Authors: Jane Onken, Fasiha Kanwal, Lin Chang
Journal: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2022)

We wish to thank Dr Sharma and colleagues for their Letter to the Editor regarding the appeal process as a means to address potential bias in peer review. The peer review process is widely held as the gold standard for selection of manuscripts for publication.1Mulligan A. Oral Oncol. 2005; 41: 135-141Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar In practice, however, the success of the peer review process relies on editorial teams and reviewers who are faced with the daunting task of screening the hundreds of thousands of manuscripts submitted annually to scientific journals, selecting for publication those that are original, methodologically sound, and suitable for a particular journal. As scientists, the goal should be to minimize the omission of important research findings from the scientific literature. In 2017, Dambha-Miller and Jones2Dambha-Miller H. et al.Learn Publ. 2017; 30: 227-231Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar conducted a survey of 20 biomedical journals, with impact factors ranging from 4 to 55, asking 5 questions related to their respective appeal processes. Of the 17 (85%) responding to the survey, only 50% had information, typically limited, relating to the appeal process on their Web site, and 90% had no formal policy or mechanism to handle appeals. Only British Medical Journal tracked their appeal success rate (10%), with 10 journals estimating their appeal success rate as "less than 5%." The authors concluded the absence of formal appeal processes, and the lack of detailed information to authors regarding the appeal process, left authors "little incentive" to file an appeal, and recommended COPE and ICMJE provide guidance for journals to establish robust appeal policies. We agree with the recommendation that journals should establish a mechanism for authors to appeal the editorial decisions. The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) journals have an appeals process. As noted in our original article, several efforts to address unconscious bias in the peer review process are already in motion within the AGA journals.3Onken J. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021; 19: 419-420Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar As part of these efforts, the AGA has publicized its appeal process across its portfolio. The process of peer review that has been in place for more than 3 centuries has clearly stood the test of time, and improvements to the process will only bolster its durability for the future. To view the AGA journals' appeals policy as part of the Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology Instructions for Authors, please visit: https://www.cghjournal.org/content/authorinfo#ap. Allowing Appeals Could Address Biases in Peer Review in GastroenterologyClinical Gastroenterology and HepatologyVol. 20Issue 7PreviewPeer review, the fulcrum of scholarly publishing, is recognized to be imperfect and subject to bias.1 Editorial decisions, guided by peer review, therefore may also be prone to errors. Thus the option to appeal editorial decisions could be one of the possible methods to mitigate the imperfections of the peer review process. Although most journals agree and commit to follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), it is unclear how journals handle author appeals or disagreements with editorial decisions. Full-Text PDF