Who may appeal
An author or faculty sponsor may appeal an editorial decision or post-publication action affecting their paper. A coauthor may submit the appeal for the author group, but the Series may seek confirmation from the other authors when the requested remedy would change the shared publication record.
Acceptable grounds
An appeal must identify at least one of these grounds:
- a material procedural error;
- a material factual error in the decision record;
- an undisclosed conflict or failure to apply required recusal;
- a material misapplication of a published Series policy; or
- relevant evidence that could not reasonably have been provided before the decision, with an explanation of why.
An appeal is not a new submission, a request for the original decision-makers to repeat their vote, or a general disagreement without a specific procedural or factual basis.
When and how to appeal
Submit the appeal within the review window stated in the written decision. If the notice does not state a window, submit it as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the decision. The Series will not enforce an unpublished numerical deadline; a delayed appeal should explain the delay and may be reviewed when a fair and effective remedy remains possible.
Use the Contact page with the subject Appeal — [paper title or identifier] and include:
- the decision being appealed and its date;
- the specific ground or grounds;
- the relevant policy or record;
- concise supporting evidence;
- the requested remedy; and
- any known conflict affecting the choice of reviewer.
Do not send restricted data or sensitive evidence through ordinary email. The Series will arrange a private channel when needed.
Reviewer and conflict screen
The Managing Editor verifies that the appeal identifies a decision, ground, and requested remedy and performs a conflict screen. If the Managing Editor is conflicted, a separate non-conflicted recorder performs those administrative steps.
The appeal is decided by a non-conflicted Faculty Editor who was not responsible for the original decision. If none is available, the Editorial Board appoints a qualified ad hoc UNLV faculty reviewer. The original decision-makers may provide the existing record but do not decide the appeal.
Possible outcomes
The reviewer may:
- affirm the decision;
- return the matter for reconsideration under a corrected process; or
- modify the action within the authority available under Series governance.
The written outcome identifies the reviewer, conflict determination, evidence considered, decision, reasons, and implementation steps. A change affecting a public record or OAsis deposit is coordinated and disclosed under the applicable corrections or withdrawal policy.
Finality and external authority
The reviewer’s written outcome is the final internal editorial determination under the Series appeals process. It does not limit rights or review routes available under law or applicable UNLV policy.
The Series cannot overturn an IRB, research-misconduct, records, legal, accessibility, or OAsis determination made by the authority responsible for that process. It may transmit or implement an authorized remedy within its control.