Conference Review Required
Only papers reviewed through an ASME conference review process are eligible for this appeal process.
ASME Turbo Expo Author Resources
Appeal Process for the ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
Guidance for authors appealing a conference review recommendation not to publish a paper in the ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power.
Who Should Use This Process?
This process applies to papers reviewed through an ASME conference review process that received a recommendation not to publish in the journal. Appeals may only be submitted after the conference has taken place.
Appeal Eligibility
When an Appeal May Be Submitted
Confirm that the paper and timing meet the journal’s eligibility requirements before beginning an appeal.
Wait Until After the Conference
The appeal may only be submitted after the conference has concluded. It cannot be submitted while the conference is still underway or before it begins.
Direct Journal Submissions Are Not Eligible
Manuscripts submitted directly to the journal are not eligible for this conference-review appeal process.
Start an Appeal
Two Ways to Initiate the Process
Authors may begin through the ASME Journal Tool or request appeal instructions from the journal editor.
Begin Through the Journal Tool
Upload the original Turbo Expo conference paper through the Journal Tool and include the required statement in the author-comments field.
“I am appealing the no-publish recommendation made during the TE review process.”Open the ASME Journal Tool
Request Instructions from the Editor
Contact the editor to request the appeal instructions. Do not attach or send a copy of the paper by email.
After receiving the instructions, submit the required appeal document through the ASME Journal Tool.
Required Appeal Package
Prepare Your Appeal
Authors must make sufficient changes to justify a re-review and clearly explain why the revised paper meets journal-quality standards.
Revise the Conference Paper
Revise the paper using relevant feedback from the conference reviewers, session organizer, conference participants, and the authors’ own technical assessment.
- Make sufficient changes to justify a new review.
- Mark revisions using yellow highlighting or underlining.
- Keep the paper in the same two-column conference format.
- Retain the conference header information in the revised paper.
Create One Complete Appeal PDF
Combine the complete appeal into one PDF file in the following order:
- The complete revised paper.
- A statement explaining how the paper was strengthened and why the work has archival value.
- The complete original Turbo Expo reviews with author responses to major comments, concerns, and requested changes.
- When appropriate, a written justification for challenging a review, recommendation, reviewer qualification, or potential bias.
Authors may challenge reviewer recommendations, but must explain why a requested change was not incorporated into the revised paper.
Upload the Single PDF
Submit the complete appeal package through the ASME Journal Tool.
- Enter the Turbo Expo conference paper number.
- Enter the required appeal statement in the author-comments field.
- Upload the single combined PDF appeal file.
What Happens Next
Journal Decision Process
The editor reviews the appeal package and may assign it to an Associate Editor when additional technical evaluation is required.
Initial Review
- Confirms that the appeal follows the required preparation and submission steps.
- Requests revisions if the single PDF appeal package is incomplete.
- Determines whether the appeal request is reasonable.
- Reviews the available conference information, reviews, and organizer information.
- May accept or reject a clear case without additional Associate Editor review.
Technical Evaluation
- May request additional revisions from the authors.
- May determine that the original reviews were fair and the paper still does not meet journal-quality standards.
- May proceed with a re-review of the paper.
- May use the original reviewers or select new reviewers.
- Makes an appeal recommendation to the editor.
Final Decision
- Reviews the Associate Editor’s recommendation.
- Determines whether the appeal paper will be published.
- Issues the final editorial decision.
Journal Quality Standards
Characteristics of a Journal-Quality Paper
A successful appeal must demonstrate more than technical correctness. The paper should present an original, validated, relevant, and lasting engineering contribution.
Original and Unpublished
Present new findings, technologies, processes, concepts, theories, analyses, experiments, or engineering ideas that advance the state of the art.
Technically Verified
Support the paper’s claims through the authors’ own analysis, experiments, successful demonstrations, or appropriately validated numerical methods.
Engineering Relevance
Demonstrate a meaningful technical application to gas turbines, reciprocating engines, power plants, or related systems, components, and processes.
Archival Value
Provide lasting value that future engineers and researchers can use for reference, education, further investigation, or engineering advancement.
Validation Expectations
New mathematical models, theories, designs, and inventions should be supported through the authors’ experiments or relevant experiments performed by others. Established and validated numerical methods may be used to explain complex phenomena without additional experimental verification when appropriate.
Publication Considerations
Papers Typically Not Suitable for Journal Publication
Technically correct work may still fall below journal standards when it does not advance the state of the art or demonstrate lasting engineering value.
Performance-Only Case Studies
Reports that only document the economic or technical performance of an existing plant, facility, engine, product, or process.
Results Without Demonstrated Relevance
Analyses or experiments that document performance without explaining the usefulness or engineering significance of the results.
Incremental Progress Reports
Reports that describe only a small incremental advance within a larger research or engineering project.
Unverified Models or Theories
New numerical models or theories presented without supporting experimental verification that the model or theory is correct.
Outdated or Oversimplified Analysis
Work based on overly simplified equations or technical approaches superseded by modern, more accurate methods.
Speculative Conclusions
Conclusions that make unsupported claims about potential applications, performance improvements, or expected outcomes.
Previously Known Information
Analyses or experiments that repeat known work without providing new understanding or advancing engineering knowledge.
Before You Appeal
Confirm that the paper has been substantially strengthened, reviewer concerns have been addressed, all required materials are included in one PDF, and the archival value of the work is clearly demonstrated.
The editor’s decision is final and cannot be appealed.
Share