[Skip to Content]

The Appeal Process
for the ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
Jerzy T. Sawicki, Ph.D., P.E., Editor-in-Chief

The process for appealing a “no-journal publication” recommendation for a technical paper is described below. The appeal process is designed to resolve any inequities in the conference review process and to help authors bring their papers to journal quality.


When Can I File an Appeal to the Journal?

(A) Papers reviewed during an ASME Conference review process are eligible for appeal, but only after the conference has taken place. For example, if the Turbo Expo conference was held from June 17-21, you cannot submit an appeal until June 22 or later.

(B) Manuscripts submitted directly to the Journal are not eligible for appeal.


How do I Submit an Appeal to the Journal?

Authors may initiate the appeal process in one of two ways:

(1) Upload a pdf file of the original TE conference paper into the Journal Tool with the comment “I am appealing the no-publish recommendation made during the TE review process”. The Editor will respond with “Revisions Required” and send the appeal instructions to the corresponding author.

(2) Send an email to the Editor at j.sawicki@csuohio.edu requesting appeal instructions. DO NOT send a copy of the paper to the Editor – proceed to uploading your appeal document to the Journal Tool.


How do I Format My Appeal PDF Document?

Author(s) wanting to appeal the “no-publish” recommendation made during the Conference review process must follow Steps 1-3 described below. Authors must make sufficient changes to the paper to justify a re-review and provide a convincing explanation if they think the review process was flawed. The characteristics of a Journal Quality paper are listed at the end of this document.

Step 1: Authors will revise their paper to incorporate changes recommended by the Conference reviewers, (2) the Conference session organizer and (3) Conference participants (if appropriate) plus their own thoughts to bring the paper up to Journal standards. The author will mark these changes either by yellow highlighting or by underlining. Additionally, you must keep your paper in the same two-column format from the conference, including the header information from the conference.

Step 2: Authors will construct one single PDF appeal file that contains:

(a) the revised complete paper as described in item 1 above, followed by

(b) a statement by the author about what he/she has done to bring the paper up to Journal quality standards (why the paper is archival), followed by

(c) the complete original TE reviews with authors’ response to major comments, concerns or requests for change. Authors may challenge reviewer-recommended changes or reviews that they consider flawed, but they must explain why they did not incorporate recommended changes into their revised paper. Authors must justify in writing such claims as: - Reviewer incompetence or bias

- Rejection without an explanation of why the paper was rejected
- Reviewer missed the point, weak review, no suggestions to improve, followed by

(d) if appropriate, author justification for challenging the reviews themselves, reviewer competence or reviewer bias.

Step 3: Authors will upload this single PDF appeal file into the ASME Journal Tool

(a) Enter the TE Conference paper number into the appropriate box,

(b) Enter the following brief statement into the ‘author comment box’, “I am appealing the no-publish recommendation made during the TE review process

(c) Upload the one single PDF appeal file into the Journal Tool.


Journal Decision Process

Upon receipt of the PDF appeal file in the Journal Tool, the Editor will:

(a) Examine the PDF appeal file to assure that the author has followed Steps 1-3 above. If the PDF file is incomplete, the editor will respond with a “Revisions Required” request for a complete PDF file.

(b) Examine the contents of the appeal material submitted by the author(s) to assure that a reasonable appeal request is being made.

(c) Go to the ASME Conference Tool and examine all information and extract the names and contact information of the original reviewers and session organizer.

(d) If it is clear that the appeal is justified, the Editor may, at his or her discretion, accept the appeal and approve the paper for publication. Or, if it is clear that the appeal is not justified, the editor may reject the appeal without further review by the Associate Editors.

(e) If further evaluation is required, the Editor will assign the appeal to a Journal Associate Editor (AE). The Editor will provide the AE with the names and contact information of the original reviewers and session organizer and may include opinions about the merits of the appeal. The Associate Editor may: - Advise the authors that they have not yet revised the paper sufficiently and ask them to make further revisions.

- Recommend to the Editor that the original reviews were fair and the paper is still not journal quality and should not be published.

- Proceed with the re-review.

- Use the original reviewers if the AE concludes that the reviewers are expert and the reviews were fair, complete and clear

- Use new reviewers. The AE will decide whether the author has made a good case for the original review being flawed,

- Consult with the Editor on the matter if necessary.

- Make a recommendation about the appeal to the Editor.

(f) The Editor will examine the AE’s recommendation and reach a decision to publish or not publish the appeal paper.

The Editor’s decision is final and cannot be appealed.


Characteristics of a Journal Quality Paper

A journal quality paper must not only be clearly written in correct English grammar and demonstrated to be technically correct, but it must also present new, previously unknown and unpublished findings that are interesting, have lasting value for referencing and educating future generations, and have a relevant engineering/technical application for gas turbines, reciprocating engines or power plants. "Application" means demonstrating that the experimental results or modeling and analyses of systems, components or processes are useful to improve understanding and advance the state-of- the-art. Emphasis is on demonstrated engineering practicality. This can take the form of new technologies, processes, concepts, theories, ideas, analyses and experiments that improve engineering designs, explain previously unexplained phenomena, or change the way we think. The content of journal quality papers must be verified to be correct by the authors’ own analysis, experiment, or successful demonstration of the engineering application. Corroboration of theory by experiment is expected. Papers using well- established and validated numerical methods to explain complex phenomena can be accepted without further experimental verification. However, in the case of new mathematical modeling, new theories, new designs and inventions, the authors must demonstrate the validity of their claims through either their own experiments or the experiments of others. Papers that are only of mathematical interest without a clear engineering motivation or have only a cursory relevance are discouraged.

Current interest papers, although technically correct, are not published in the journal. They generally use known theories, commercial computer codes, standard equations and experiments to analyze and document the performance of existing products, processes, components or facilities without advancing the state-of-the-art or providing an assessment of the meaning, usefulness or relevance of the work. Such papers often repeat the work of others, present information already known or make simplifications not consistent with today’s level of technology. Of course, papers that are technically wrong are rejected. Examples of current interest papers would be:

(1) Case studies or test reports that simply document the economic or technical performance of existing power plants, facilities, or engines,

(2) Analyses or experiments that document the performance of engine components or processes without demonstrating the relevance and usefulness of the results,

(3) Progress reports that give incremental advances in an overall research or engineering project,

(4) Presentations of new, complex numerical modeling or theories without any supporting experimental verification that the modeling or theory is correct.

(5) Analyses that use overly simplified equations or outdated technical approaches and design methods that have been superseded by the modern, more accurate methods.

(6) Conclusions that make unproven, speculative statements about the applicability of the tests or analyses conducted. Such conclusions typically use the words "could" or “should” or “shows the potential” as in “These results should be expected to increase efficiency”.

(7) Analyses or experiments that provide information that is already known.


Jerzy T. Sawicki, Ph.D., P.E.
Editor-in-Chief, ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
Bently and Muszynska Endowed Chair and Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Cleveland State University
Tel: (216) 687-9364
Email: j.sawicki@csuohio.edu