Ali - what you describe happens sometimes. I've waited longer - particularly from one journal that I have only used only the once. It was close to 18-months that I waited for a result - and then another 6 months for it to make copy. That said, I was 'on the journal editors back' for quite a while - until they said 'forget the reviews - we'll just publish it'. Thankfully, it was quite a good article that, looking at it even today, wouldn't have benefitted much more from further reviewer comments. In that case, they were waiting for one reviewer who kept 'losing my manuscript'. Funny that - hey!! Added to that, the journal administrators 'lost' my article in the process for a while. It was a 'one-off' - but I know of other colleagues who have experienced similar. If you add all the 'one-offs' together - it becomes more common than you think.

Long delays are, of course frustrating, and there is an added 'danger'. The longer your manuscript is held up in the 'chain' of submission and re-submission to various journals - the less 'current' your data and findings become.

I have been a reviewer for several years and finished my reviews fast (usually in less than a week although International Business Review gives me 6 weeks, some other journals 4-8 weeks to do it), but the process is slow because of authors: after they get the reviews, they'll usually send a revised version in 2-3 months, then I have to read the paper again, and if the paper is still not good enough, they'll again rewrite it... Sometimes one reviewer is fast but the other is slow or refuses to read the paper (again), and then the editor has to find a new one... Editors can't do much to speed up the process: journals don't pay the reviewers, and if they would offer incentives for speed, then maybe some people would send something fast without reading the paper thoroughly.

Unfortunately, there are few metrics about journal review speed to compare. In my discipline, some journals have a first decision within 2 weeks, others take over 4 months. The speed or slowness of the journal review time does not correlate with impact factor. Personally, I think reviewers respond to the expectations put upon them. As a reviewer myself, if I have 14 days to do a review then I do it within those 14 days, but if I have 30 days, then I might take longer to get to the review. We often work under the "tyranny of urgency" as a colleague puts it.

Tiia and Donna - both good answers - and the fact that we respond to questions quickly on ResearchGate probably reflects the fact that we are all 'timely' reviewers. I am the same - even if I am allowed 3 months to review - I will still review within a few weeks. Personally, I don't like to see reviews pile up on my desk - just looking at them (I review for over 30 international peer-review journals). I have noticed, more of late though, that those journals that used to offer a generous review period are now cutting them down considerably. Any 'new' journal that has approached me over the last few years - there now seems to be a consistent 'rule of thumb' of around two- weeks. That may deter a lot of reviewers and reduce the pool of quality reviewers - but will probably result in a speedier process. The addition of 'in press' and 'advance access' facilities with many journals also helps to circumvent some of the dilemma. I do agree that editors are often powerless to do much about the situation - other than propose tactics such as shorter turnaround times.

I feel that the journals should follow a strict time schedule for the reviewers, so that the editorial decision are made on time.

While some journal editors do follow it, others don't and this puts the authors in a disadvantaged position. A quick but thorough review is essential for maintaining the quality of publications and also to ensure that the article is published on time.

I strongly feel that Editors should clearly indicate the time-line and if a reviewer fails to adhere to it, the paper should be sent to others, so that an endless wait for communicating the editorial decision is avoided.

In my opinion, if a reviewer has a pretty tight schedule, he (she) should not undertake the review, notifying the editor accordingly. In the case that the reviewer accepts the invitation, he/she must be aware of the deadlines and follow them as strictly as possible.

We think that the Journals are very slow in their peer review process but there is a lot of rush for submitted articles. Sometime editor sent paper to reviewers and reviewers dont send back to editor in time. So there are so many things involved in peer review process. Some highly advanced journals, may be they repeat experiment or anything else in some doubtful observation. So we cant blame for all time to journals for their peer review process.

I'll try this answer out and you can tell me if it's crazy:

Reviewing an article only takes half a day. If we are given 60 days to review an article that means 59.5 days of not reviewing and 0.5 days of reviewing. For me, I prefer to get the reviewing done as early as possible, so that I can get on with everything else that is piling up on my desk! But some reviewers keep that 0.5 day task until the last minute and write a 'panic' review.

Spot on Erik. You're version of 'crazy', rest assured, is perfectly normal and sane Depending on the complexity and length of a submission, half a day would be very generous from my point of view. Most 'easier' submissions will only take me an hour or so to review. Granted - it may take me a while to write the review as well - but nothing onerous. If a manuscript needs 'volumes' of feedback - then it must be highly flawed. In which case, my role is not to 're-write' it for the authors - just to summarize the main points for correction - or main reasons for rejection. If it is a clear rejection - then I think that is more the responsibility of the authors to work it out at least partly for themselves why it has been. Any 'delay' from me between reviewing and writing the review may be merely 'logistical'. Sometimes I review a manuscript as a printed hard copy while I'm 'on the move somewhere'. Then there may be a short delay before I get around to writing the review online.

I have sumitted two papers last February (more than 8 months) ago and still waiting. After emailing the editors I got this email from the first journal "I have checked the system. The reviews have just been returned. I will review them within 2-3 weeks, but if I will require to consult the editorial panel or request for the third review, then it may take 1-2 months longer until the outcome be available." and "Thank you for your email. I must apologise for the long delay and also thank you for altering me to the fact your submission has been waiting so long. Very unusually, two of the reviewers have not yet returned their comments to me. I have emailed both of them and have also started to look for alternative reviewers. I hope that we will be abel to reach a decision shortly. Thank you for your patience." from the other journal. Knowing that that those two journals have high impact factor and very well know in my area !!

I am a bit frustrated and I hope its worth the wait !! i don't want to think those two papers got rejected what may happens to me !! on the other hand, i have got a feedback within 3 weeks from a good journal, i was so happy about the quick feedback and this journal will be a good option for me in the near future, while I will totally forget about publishing in the first two.

Ali - what you describe happens sometimes. I've waited longer - particularly from one journal that I have only used only the once. It was close to 18-months that I waited for a result - and then another 6 months for it to make copy. That said, I was 'on the journal editors back' for quite a while - until they said 'forget the reviews - we'll just publish it'. Thankfully, it was quite a good article that, looking at it even today, wouldn't have benefitted much more from further reviewer comments. In that case, they were waiting for one reviewer who kept 'losing my manuscript'. Funny that - hey!! Added to that, the journal administrators 'lost' my article in the process for a while. It was a 'one-off' - but I know of other colleagues who have experienced similar. If you add all the 'one-offs' together - it becomes more common than you think.

Long delays are, of course frustrating, and there is an added 'danger'. The longer your manuscript is held up in the 'chain' of submission and re-submission to various journals - the less 'current' your data and findings become.

@ Dean, i would be so happy if the reviewers accept my papers but what if they don't. Its fair enough if any of my papers got rejected within the given time (they usually mention that it wont take more than 3 months!! ) .... anyway, finger-crossed, all i can do is to wait and pray :)