Even though subjecting review paper to the same review process as original paper is understandable, I believed review paper should be given special attention and be reviewed in a timely manner. This may be necessary because such manuscript even if accepted will not only need to incorporate the reviewers' suggestions but will also need to be updated based on the related published papers during the course of reviewing it.
One year is incredible. If an reviewer does not have time. He does not have to accept a new articles. Normally the editor in chief asks the reviewer on the time of his answer.
One year is too long. In the present time with so much advance in Technology & the pace of addition to the pool of knowledge, the manuscript will become outdated if the review process is taking one year.
I think it's probably way too long. But, it does depend on subject area, and on what's being reviewed. In my experience, in political science, reviews of books were rarely sent out for their own review. The journal's editor would deicide to publish, or not....
Even then, it could take a good long time to get into print. Many months, maybe a year.
Christopher NOCK
Reviewers, if too busy, should not accept manuscripts for reviewing.
This is outrageous! Speak to the editor. There may be a problem somewhere.
This is outrageous! Speak to the editor. There may be a problem somewhere.
Well, we did have a long discussion on a similar topic a little while ago. Does anyone remember that question? There were some good answers.
This topic is a little different as it seems to be about review material being reviewed. Usually, that sort of thing is requested by the publisher. If that's the case here, it can take as long as it likes!
NOCK
Thank you all for your contributions.
Dear Nock, it is neither a book review nor invited review, it is just a normal review paper sent for possible publication.
It's a lot of time for reviewing a paper. I think that it's better not accept review paper that you make long time. Many researcher may need the paper for examen or other obligation. With the loss of time research can loss some chance in some fields.
One year is incredible. If an reviewer does not have time. He does not have to accept a new articles. Normally the editor in chief asks the reviewer on the time of his answer.
Sarafa, thanks for the clarification! We did have a very fruitful discussion on this a little while ago. I need to find it and will let you know.
NOCK
Sarafa, it was a question asked by Muneer Al-Husseini. It was "Is it ethical/professional to contact the editor of (sic) directly for a submitted manuscript (rather than contacting the editorial team on the website)?"
There were some excellent answers, including my own! :-)
NOCK
Generally a review process gets completed in 2 to 6 months. But if it is taking a year then it is not acceptable at the author end. One should ask the editor to expedite the review process.
Ideally it Shouldn't be under review for more than a year. It just indicate that number of reviewer assigned to your paper are few and editor is also not taking any pain in deciding the fate of your manuscript.
Thank you all for your times and contributions. I think there is need for Editors-in-Chief to be giving special considerations to review papers by expediting the review processes of the manuscripts.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher