I had submitted a paper in one of the reputed international journals. After initial checks, the editor of the journal sends my paper for review. I got the major comments (more than 20) from two reviewers suggested by the editor after two months. I had submitted the revised version of the manuscript after incorporating all the issues raised by the reviewers. Finally, the paper was accepted by two reviewers. This whole process took more than one year.
The editor of the journal gave me conditional acceptance and told me to reduce the number of words from the manuscript. According to the guidelines of the same journal, there is no limitation of words in the manuscript; however, my paper has less than 7500 words. I told the editor that now it is not possible to reduce the number of words in the manuscript, but the editor forced me again and again to reduce the number of words; therefore, I transferred many things from the original article to the supplementary material.
My manuscript has less than 6000 words after moving many essential things to the supplementary material, but the editor did not give acceptance and finally rejected my paper.
My concerns are:
1. If the editor wanted to reduce the number of words in the manuscript then why didn't he told me at the time of initial submission.
2. These two reviewers who accepted my manuscript was suggested by the editor, not by me.
3.Why the editor of the journal does not change the author guidelines where it is written that there is no limit of words.
I am sorry to hear that what was happend to you after making lengthy revisions and spending a plenty of time to make the article acceptable. The points you have highlighted (specially 1 and 3) make sense.
Yes , you are right, so one thing you can do write a letter to the Editor and Chief to look your matter again and CC to all the Associate Editor. I hope, you will get positive reply, if you have submitted your paper in top tier journal not paid one.
Can you disclose the name of journal in inbox so that i can be aware by that journal in future.
regards
I agree that there are a number of issues that need to be discussed about such journals and the selection of their editors and reviewers. I think there should be an entity that could take care of such discussions and finding the right solutions. It is noticeable that such journals do not have specific criteria in choosing and publishing papers.
This to me is completely unethical editing and therefore unacceptable in the academic parlance. I am therefore suggesting taking the issue to higher levels to seek redress and forestall future occurrence.
But you wrote that the paper was accepted... and that's finally the best for you... i know that this is a long process but there were a lot of steps - first editor decision, first revison, your correct, second decision, and finaly acceptance / 5 steps. We dont know how long you prepared the corrected version . I have to admit that I also would prefer to have a final descion within 6 months ..... but its impossible in most well known journals, check the dates in the articles in most important yournals - very often there is a period even of 2 years ...
Dear Mohd,
Before I read your question on my phone and I didn't see the rest of the question.
Of course - This is not acceptable, You should write a compliance to the main editor or someone who is responsilbe for
1. what is very important - is the second revision made by reviewers - if they aceepted Your correction - the article should be published
I wish You to be succesfull !
The issues is completely clear from my view point, the reputed journals just looking for a small fault in order to rejecting the paper, I have the same experience
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts