Yes, it is fully professional. I guess this journal is published by BMC. Right? For them, 3 months is not really that long. Commonly, it takes more than that.

If you decide to contact the editor in cheif, put the manuscript title and number in the email subject and do not criticize his team. Just say: We appreciate the efforts of the editorial team; however, we are concerned about the delay in processing our manuscript and would like to know if there are any problems in that regard.

But my advice: Wait one more month. Probably, you will not have to send this email at all.

Kind Regards

Yes, it is fully professional. I guess this journal is published by BMC. Right? For them, 3 months is not really that long. Commonly, it takes more than that.

If you decide to contact the editor in cheif, put the manuscript title and number in the email subject and do not criticize his team. Just say: We appreciate the efforts of the editorial team; however, we are concerned about the delay in processing our manuscript and would like to know if there are any problems in that regard.

But my advice: Wait one more month. Probably, you will not have to send this email at all.

Kind Regards

There is also a factor that the topic of your article may be very advanced and the editor needs more time to locate appropriate reviewers for your article.

Well,. I wouldn't say it's wholly professional. After all, it's prompted by your frustration! If the journal hasn't lived up to it's own published standards, then it's fair enough for you to offer to withdraw it and send it elsewhere. And it's the editor who should deal with that offer!

This is a key problem with academic publishing. Publishers know they hold the key because authors are so desperate to be published. Authors should calm down, and only deal with publishers who treat them well.

Also, younger authors--those seeking jobs, and those still making their way up the greasy pole--want this article published, then to forget about it, and move on to the next one. This also contributes to the publishers being in control of the overall process.

So calm down authors! It will be for your own long-term good.

Christopher NOCK

Well, dear authors.

I can give two my personal point of view.

1. We presented manuscript to Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy, and in two years there was no answer. I wrote three letters to the Editor, none was answered, so I withdraw manuscript.

One may say, manuscript was so bad - nope, it is accepted by another journal with minor revision.

2. Being an editor myself, I many times had to cope with manuscripts, where it is impossible to get professional review, as no one accept the job. Thus, delay was unavoidable.

In such case, questions from the authors did not help to improve situation, just irritates editors. So, my answer is as follows: if you are confident about your manuscript, withdraw it. If not - be patient. Editors are doing their best.

Dear author,

Delays in making decision about your paper are mainly connected with delays in reviewers' answering. We should remember that they are ordinary people who may have urgent work, be sick, have family problems, be on business trip, etc. In any case, reviews are not their primary problem, especially if they review papers for 2 or more journals.

The best advise - be patient.

Best wishes.

It is professional to contact them, but, me too, I think it is better to wait

Why not? An Editor is not untouchable and has got some civic responsibilities. Besides, judging by his answer's style you'll understand whether it would not be wise for you to forger about a particular Journal (my experience...)

Going through the same problem at this time. More than 3 months waiting and thinking about withdrawing my manuscript to send it to another journal. Our paper is the final step for a PhD student to have the green light from the university to defend his thesis. Very annoying that his life is on hold due to the problems of other people. But withdrawing the manuscript may lead to other few months of waiting. So, the editor should give a good time frame to provide a final answer.

Ernesto

Well, this doesn't really sound like a journal problem. More like a complication arising from the complexities of your Ph.D arrangements. Hardly a fault of the journal itself.

But I do think journals and university presses need to be more open and honest about their processes, and the causes of any hold ups.

NOCK

I think it is professional to contact the editor through online system as many publishers and online system provide this option.

Christopher

If a University has certain requirements for the students, it is fine, the student knows that from day 1. When choosing a journal to publish, the last thing I think about is the length of the process, despite I like to have quick answers, but if the journal states that they have an average of 40 days from submission to first answer of reviewers, and we have been waiting for 4 months, and this keep the student to be able to advance in the process, then it is a problem of the Journal. An honest answer from the journal stating, "we can't find reviewers" or "reviewers are taking too long" or "take your work elsewhere, because we have no way to handle it" or anything else, but good feedback to the authors, is something that I expect. When reviewing for journals, which I do all the time, I get reminders, and if I take too long, even warnings that if I don't answer withing certain time, my help will not be needed anymore. And usually this happens in short time periods after the initial deadline. I guess I will never submit other manuscript to the journal where I have been handled in such a sloppy way.

Well, I'm happy to agree with most of what you say. Indeed, it's pretty much what I said about openess.

But still, if your Ph.D requirements demand something from the journal, it's also for you to be open and honest about your particular needs, in any particular case. That's not a criticism, merely an observation.

NOCK

The PhD requirements doesn't demand anything from the journal. The requirements are what they are, and every student have to fulfill them. If the management of a journal doesn't allow to give professional treatment to all the submissions, is not my problem, is not the problem of the PhD student, is the problem of the journal and its management. Therefore, is valid for authors to contact the editor and ask for guidance, and have the chance to withdraw or leave the manuscript. In the case of my student, I let the editor know that we would like to know what are the estimated times, in order to decide if we stay or we leave. Let's see if the editor has the grace of sharing his/her thoughts with us.

No. It's your PhD system that making the demand, not the journal's. Would you expect a British journal to bend to your of your students demand? I hope not. And I'd fully support it in not doing so!

Still, your quite right in your approach to the journal/editor, even if for the wrong reasons! I wish you both luck.

NOCK

Sorry! When I say "wish you both luck," I mean you and your student. Not the editor!

NOCK

The question pose by Muneer is clear while the answers have deviated from the central point.

• There is no difference between contacting the Editor or the Editorial team.
• Both are part of a team of a private financial enterprise which is designed to financially viable while maintaining status-quo and keeping egg off the face of more established investigators who form the Establishment in that era.
• All Editors and Editorial teams work as Obstetricians -- with masterly inactivity, waiting for the herd to commit itself. The herd is the reviewer community. Sometimes Editors wait for months or years to let the result of RCTs to be published, a clear manifestation of violation of conflict of interest principles and violation of ethical norms.
• My critical review on Botulinum toxin was held up for around 2 years, despite repeated communications to the Editor/Editorial team (See attached file/URL).
• My critical article on the role and mechanisms of antidepressants was instantly dismissed by the Editor of Neurology in ~1995 and never saw the light of publication as I was disheartened. In fact, it was never sent out for review. I wrote to the Ombudsman of Neurology, and, got a bland reply.
• My article on the basis of migraine (see attached file) was sent out for review by Theoretical Modelling in Medicine. After much delay of months, one reviewer accepted to review but did not send her/his comments for almost a year while the second reviewer rejected the article without commenting on the central plank. Migraine affects one fifth of humankind.
• Editors and reviewers pay the greatest attention to the Institutional source of the article -- the biggest cause of concern in medical publishing.
• If you have a truly original idea, I encourage you to submit to Medical Hypotheses and other similar journals.
• The overall scene is not so bleak. There are some scattered jewels who go out of their way in the pursuit of the truth (see files).
• I had to wait for over one year even after acceptance of my manuscript to Cephalalgia despite active support from the Editor-in-Chief, for what I believe is the most important paper ever yet published (1997) in migraine pathophysiology, setting that it does the template for the division of migraine phenomenology in to adaptive and non-adaptive categories (see file).
• Human effort can never be free from the taint of conflict of interest. With tenure or PhD linked to publication, bread-and-butter issues have become placed centre, right and left, and obliterate everything else. The conflict of interest arises also from the lure of fame and rewards, besides fortune. The successful researcher/reviewer/editor/editorial team in the relentless pursuit of the truth suppresses conflict of interest thereby getting off the slippery slope of delusional desires to a large degree or completely (see attachment--J Med Ethics).

Botulinum toxin--a treatment for migraine? A systematic review.

Gupta VK.

Pain Med. 2006 Sep-Oct;7(5):386-94. Review.

PMID: 17014596

I believe you can contact the chief editor if you believe he can add to the situation. Otherwise, normally s/he is busier than the others. May be it is under-review but due to the differences between review management software it is not mentioned or a mistake from the journal reviewing team to report status change. Do not be nagging .. give editors some time to react before proceeding ..

Thanks for this Ahmad. Back when I used to referee, papers came to me late, or they were struggling to find a second reader, or....

All sorts of reasons for all sorts of delays.

There was no payment. You did this as a professional courtesy, so it was a little way down the priority list.

NOCK

I have not had this strange situation before . We usually contact the team formally. I really do not prefer personal contact

My last message was NOT intended for Ahmed mohamed Afifi. And I am sorry it was sent to you. I don't know how or why this happened.

It was intended as a response to Ahmad Samir AlFaar who provided the preceding comment to mine.

NOCK

Thank you all for your valuable answers,

Editorial team make a significant effort, but still authors are sometimes frustrated for many reasons (like the example about the PHD, or any other requirement they need), or sometimes they are frustrated about the novelty of the manuscript that may be affected by this delay.

We can conclude from all the answers that most of the delay is caused by the effort to find reviewers, or to follow up with them.

In my opinion, I think a gentle reminder does not harm, but may quicken the process a little bit. Sometimes even just a reply from the editor will be satisfying for the authors and make them relieved that an action is being taken.

Dear Muneer,

• In ways innumerable, the balance of power between authors and editors is hopelessly skewed in favour of the editor/editorial team/reviewer combine.
• Those who wish to state or defend their comments otherwise, are advised to read: "Authors have rights too", as attached herein
• Editors, like priests meeting in conclaves, meet to protect their interest and "face" or repute, and hardly, if ever, are concerned about author rights.
• Editors are never frustrated by any submission because of the immense power of auto-rejection and the comfort of the herd that supports them and is hostile to innovation.
• BMC journals are different. They even publish reviewer comments pre-publication.
• I chose BMC journals whenever I believe that I have something clinical that is original to publish.
• I foresee a shift from traditional journals in time to come.
• Every disgruntled author drives another nail in the coffin of such self-important journals who tout their pedigree and impact factors to attract submissions. Established journals have a vague definition of what constitutes "original" or merits awards like "Harold G. Wolff Awards" for investigation in primary headache. Authors have to bear with such idiosyncracy.
• Beyond 3-6 months, you should request retraction of your submission and present it elsewhere.
• Muneer, I hope this will help you further in a concrete manner.

If you think your manuscript is good then you can ask the editor politely. You may ask him thay if he is not able to find the review then you can suggest some. Otherwise editors are doing their jobs and sending repeated email won't help him and may irritate him.