A little story of scientific struggle. I submitted a paper to an Elsevier's journal in October 2018. It took about two months to send the paper to the reviewers, a little longer than average. But that was ok, I wasn't in a hurry at the time. In May, the paper was still "under review". It took much longer than average for "Material Science". I contacted the help desk and I got a reply from a guy in India. No editor of the journal lives in India, it's just less expensive to run a "call center" there. He told me that only one of the two reviewers replied. Usually, when a reviewer is late on his job, the paper is sent to someone else, but, for unknown reasons, not in this case. He told me that he will personally make sure to contact the reviewer and that he will update me in 3 weeks. After 6 weeks, I didn't receive any updates from him. I wrote an angry letter, but he ignored most of the content and just replied that he was sorry, but the editor in charge resigned and the process was probably going to take much longer. He promised to keep me updated. So I contacted directly the editor. She did indeed resign, but in May, BEFORE I contacted Elsevier the first time. The support guy didn't even know. She offered to send a letter to the editorial board to speed things up. One month is passed, the paper is still listed under her (3 months after she left) and I didn't receive any further update. Today I wrote to the Managing Editor.
My precious work is in the hands of people with no respect for the hundreds of hours I spent in my lab for this project. No respect for the PhD students who need a publication to get their degree. No respect for our intellectual property which is currently stalled because of their internal issues. My promotion also depends on my publications, of course.
Just like a sad italian comedy from the '70s.
I do not know what to say. Withdraw the MS and submit else where.
Subir has a point. That would be your choice Elia. The journal nor editors would not lose any sleep over that action though. I'm wondering if you are 'venting' your frustrations here - rather than asking a question? That would be normal, given the circumstances but what you do describe is, unfortunately, not that uncommon - especially when one has been publishing for some time. Stuff happens with journals i.e. editors, processes, administrators change - and don't always communicate well between them. Reviewers 'lose' reviews and are not always chased up. It's not ideal, of course, but authors should factor the possibility in - and have an 'exit' strategy.
Well, research gate offer two chances: ask a question or start a discussion, my point being the latter. It's crucial to point out that we are not the ones making money out of publications, a little more respect (and responsibility) would be more than welcome. I'm not particularly angry, it's just that the system has many flaws and it's incredible that a journal with over 40 editors can't even manage internal issues properly.
A simple withdraw is a solution for my case, but not to the general problem. That's why I called this q "cautionary tale".
You are suffering from several of our current day problems. All of which I commiserate with. The work needs to be published (soon), both for the purposes of your career and of the body that sponsored it. Submitting to a high ISI number journal is good for your career and makes the likelihood of the research being read and cited higher. But many/most journals won't accept papers under consideration elsewhere. Many/most journals rely on voluntary, unpaid reviewers and there is little incentive to review quickly as the reviewer gains no benefit from reviewing. In many cases, the career-reviewers for your future jobs will take no account of papers published in lesser journals. For some research in active fields, others reaching print or online publishing before you (even if they submitted somewhere earlier) means that your paper is no longer 'worth publishing'. I would suggest a few minor changes: (i) all papers are published with their submission date (even if that date is submission to another journal, supplemented if necessary by a revision date); (ii) all universities have an online Journal in which any papers submitted by university members will be published without review with a three month delay; and (iii) Journals accept that submissions to, and not already published by, such university journals do not nullify submissions to them. All Masters and PhD theses should likewise be published automatically by such university online journals with a delay of two years, extendable on the author's request by a further year or reducible on the author's request as required.
@Elia - I know I'm talking pie in the sky, but it is nice to know at least one other person has listened. Best regards - Julian (and I am under no pressure to publish :) )
You are under pressure to publish, and also to publish in high profile journals. From your side, you need to decide what is important: publish first; or publish in a high profile journal? This is a fight I have every month or so with my wife (an academic with whom I publish a lot). For me, a patent attorney, publishing first comes out as a 10/10 importance - for my wife profile is important. Think before you submit - if you want it published, then a journal that rejects you after 10 months should never be on your list.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science