no limit, i have a published paper takes four year as below

Article Homomorphic Image Watermarking With a Singular Value Decompo...

Well, i have experienced this with many open access publishers like Plos One and BMC. Especially BMC journals; they have the worst review times ever. I think the only way to stop that is by the authors themselves that they stop submitting to these journals. I do understand the pressure on editors, but definitely there are other ways than to cost the authors this much time.

I have submitted my paper to a journal and have paid the publication fees as well and till now they haven't publish it online; FYI my manuscript acceptance date was July 2016.

One should avoid these journals. The journals might be good but publishing papers within a reasonable time limit is also an index of quality publishing.

15 months is way too long to review papers for journals. Justice delayed is justice denied and it is preventing you from seeking alternatives. I suggest, you withdraw your paper and submit it elsewhere. Amir

I have also bitter experience, one my article took three years to publish it. After one year I received quite long comments (appreciation as well as comments) I submitted it in 2007 and it was published in 2010.

My article was: Social support and its correlation with loneliness: A cross-cultural study of Nepalese older adults

It is very unfortunate and frustrating as well when a journal takes much time. We must keep on asking about the status of our paper and should send request for expediting the review process.

One year and 3 months it's crazy. Sir if your paper does not contain novelties and you look for a new modest journal then you will be welcome in our journal.

https://www.ijeca.info/index.php/IJECA/index

Maximum journal taken more time to back accept

15 months is too long time for research paper review. Usually, a paper review can take between one to four months, depending on the journal and the field of study. Sometimes, the editor, after going through the reviews, might feel that an additional review is required. In such cases, the status might go back to “Under Review.” and this may be consumed several weeks. However long time might need if the editor is very busy.

In my view , to encourage researchers, review may be completed and intimated to the author within one to two months of submission.

In case of non acceptance, this will help researchers to improve the content and look for alternative.

It is too long, it happened to me before but it had taken 11 month only, I sent twice to the editor but every time I received the same replay (reviewer assigned). In this time I asked someone who was an editor in highly respectable journal and suggested to withdraw it and send to another journal, but in the same month I had received the reply and it was major revision. I had another trial with another journal, I received the comments as a major revision also after 6 months. I revised it and sent to editor again but I receive the replay on the revision after another 6 months (1 year for all). So I decided not to send them again.

I hope from the editorial boards of such journals to find a suitable way for that to not waste the researcher times, and may be what is novel now, it will be not in the near future.

My best wishes

All of us review for journals and we know that it doesn’t take that much time to review a paper. Is there anything that could be done to force editors to work better in this regard?!

I think one of the alternatives may be to incentivise/monetize the review process.

Publishers should pay reviewers for the valuable man-hours they (reviewers) spend.

This way, they will review faster. They may even review more papers in order to earn more.

I know of a case in a very popular foreign journal on Plant Taxonomy where the section editor was holding the MS on a cyperaceous genus for more than one and a half year probably because of conflicting interest.

The MS was ultimately withdrawn by the authors.

I can understand the attitude of a reviewer to accept an article for review and keep it in custody for months.

I never do this.

Yesterday one article was sent to me by Science Domain International for review, and I have submitted the reviewed article and report a few minutes ago.

If I feel busy, I do not accept reviewing request.

We should not forget our University days when we all were very eagar to see our publication as early as possible.

Thanks.

I suspect that Editors have difficult work to do but I also suspect that some condone editorial and review delay.

This happens quite often. The only thing authors can do is be patient.

Fifteen months? That's a long time ... perhaps you can withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere? Otherwise, be patient . . .

Avoid these types of Journals.

Maybe two months.

Some reviewers accept to review papers but fail to deliver on schedule due to unforeseen circumstances on their availability. I believe this could be the main reason for editorial delay.

Sometimes, conflicting review Comments Force Editors to seek for additional Reviews thus doubling or tripling review process.

Editors always say that their target is to complete the review process and communicate decisions to authors within the shortest time possible. In my opinion, the publisher has to inform the authors about details of different steps of the review process, especially in case of reviewer non-response or long reviewing delay. Indeed, a number of factors influence the time it takes to complete the process, most notably the availability and responsiveness of referees.

Here is a website that publishes statistics on journals: average acceptance rate, time to publication, response time, efficiency etc : https://scirev.sc/

I am having relatively similar issue right now taking up to 10 months. It is very unfortunate. After writing series of letter, no single response but they continue updating the tracking system, sometimes two-two months interval. In fact, the manuscript took 6 months on editor desk before passing it to the peer-reviewers.

I have waited for seven months, but not received the first round of comments yet.

This is an issue worth addressing by the research community.

Then I guess I have to relax, mine is just three months old and it says "Awaiting Assignment".

Bismark you are even lucky that it is awaiting assignment. For others nothing is indicated at all for over five months.

Dr. Kofi Agyekum is that so? Which journals are those? That is surprising to me as I have never had any encounter like that. Please organize a seminar on journal selection so that some of these issues in addition to others will be discussed. I'll be interested in attending.

Sure Samuel I will consider that.

I totaly agree with Dr. Kofi Agyekum. I was waiting for an answer from a high impact factor journal about a paper for 12 months and despite my letters to the editor asking about the results of the review the editor was answering that the paper was under review!! After 12 months the paper was rejected and emmediately after I sent it to another journal, the same paper was accepted within 1 month and without any comment by the reviewers!!

Based on my discussion with the Chief-editor of one of the top journals in my field, I got to understand that these journals receive countless number of papers on a daily basis. It is really not easy for some of them too, hence the rejection of some papers without a review process or a long waiting time before papers getting into review stage. . . I have waited for over a year for my paper to go into review, and presently I have one I submitted in February 2017 and I just got the first review comment September 2018. Now the paper is still awaiting reviewers assignment for second review. Though these things can be frustrating... I believe sometimes it's worth the wait.

Thanks for this Douglas. Samuel Frimpong I believe Douglas's response is quite cool with you?

It's distressing to wait for such a long period. This is found with the traditional high impact journals especially. It's higly unethical to keep researchers in the dark with regards to the state of their papers during the review process. Editors must send papers to dedicated reviewers who can review the papers within a specified period.

Dear Dr Dickson,

I had also an bitter experience, I submitted one my article in the International Journal of Aging and Human Development (Journal impact factor around 1.0) in 2007 I received reviewer comments in 2009 and the comment was quite long with positive feed back but suggested to modify the analysis and finally it was published in 2010.

Article Social Support and Its Correlation with Loneliness: A Cross-...

Dear Dickson, you are correct, it's really distressing not knowing what is happening during submission. However, I will like to see this from the perspective of editors too. Getting "dedicated" reviewers is difficult. Most academics find it add to accept invites to review and when they even respond to the call they take forever to give feedback. Editors are then faced with the problem of selecting a new reviewer all over again. My point is, if we as academics do our part also and accept invites to review and give feedback within the stipulated time, we to some extent make the editors job easier.

That is true Douglas. I'm sure most reviewers refuse to honour their time probably because they themselves have had some bitter experiences before. I encountered an Academic who indicated that he submitted his documents to be considered for promotion and the feedback he got from the authorities was that they did not get any reviewers (assessors)to assess his publications and this greatly affected his promotion time. He is a reviewer for a high impact academic journal and since that time he has turned down many review requests because of his experience. But the question is should we in Academia behave in such ways.

This notwithstanding we also should highly acknowledge the few who rightfully honour their review times.

So true Dr Kofi. Either way we decide to look at it, we all have a part to play in this. We cant let our bad experiences affect the good we can do for others. We will surely have good and bad stories to tell about our publication history as academics. I believe Journal Editors need to understand the need for proper and prompt communication with authors regarding their submissions. Also, Academics need to understand that reviewing is an important service to the academic community, hence accepting to review and giving prompt feedback is by extension helping other academics to grow.

Douglas, to add to everything I believe evidence of high engagement of peer reviewing for academic journals should be highly considered in the criteria for promotions, especially, in our part of the world.

I completely agree with you.

I would suggest that Academic Institutions introduce a grade level for their staffs in which for a certain period of time (Say one year) the academician is promoted to that level and all he/she does is review papers for reputable journals and conferences. Although that doesn't mean anybody who is not within this grade level cannot be engaged in paper review from time o time. This will give room for having time to engage in reviewing as well as being productive by contributing to the body of knowledge. If only academia can dedicate more time to reviewing papers, quality of publications will improve while authors will have the opportunity to get responses to their submitted papers in due time.

A great submission Opeoluwa. On that note I recommend Publons Academy to my great colleagues here. It is worth trying.

Are we not part of this delay ?. I think the same way we are burdened and sometimes keep others articles for lengthy periods, similar excuses and difficulties exist for other academics

We are our own evils. Because you have been refused before you keep a colleagues paper for so long. What will you gain from that? I think giving due weight and recognition to review will be a way to encourage academics to review papers.

That's perfectly true Alhassan

no limit, i have a published paper takes four year as below

Article Homomorphic Image Watermarking With a Singular Value Decompo...

Received 9 December 2010, Revised 29 June 2014, Accepted 2 July 2014, Available online 24 August 2014.

Really, I have faced similar thing. There should be estimated time frame from initial submission decision. Unless, it will be disappointing to the authors particularly.

It's unfortunate that this thing happens in this era.

I am an editor and I consider that the review process should take 24 days (first revision round) once the reviewer has accepted to revise the paper. In my experience, it is the most effective period. The more time it is assigned to a reviewer, the later he/she will reply. I get upset when I hear about review processes that last 6 months, a year and even longer. If that is happening to you, it is because the editor is not doing the job well.

Respected journals would not have more than a month to answer to a submission and eventually 3 to 6 months to review and maybe another 2-3 for the final processing. However there is a lot of pressure on the editorial board due to the number of submissions and sometimes they do not have to much time to asses if a certain paper merits to be sent over to peer review. But still this is not the problem. Due to reduced time few researchers are willing to review papers and it is very difficult to find experts in certain domains to review the huge amount of papers. However 4 years with no communication in due course is very much and should raise questions. In final, I am sure that all of us agree that very high impact research could be reviewed and processed in very short times.

I think you can email the journal to withdraw your article and send it to another journal. I believe 15 months is just unreasonable. I hope this helps.

Cheers

Agree@Obed

It is normal, certain journals take more time to find reviewers for a particular subject. So, you can contact the journal for accelerating the review process or withdrawing your submission.

1,5 months.

For your kind information, some times it takes very unusual time. In my case one my article submitted in 2007 April, I got reviewer comment in 2008 Jun and later it was published in 2010. it took me around three years.

I agree with you Dr. Omer... I have faced similar thing

My recently uploaded paper on my RG page took seven months. One is still under review. It has taken more than a year. Sometimes, the problem is with reviewers accepting an invitation to review a paper when in actual sense, they don't have quality time to do it.

Personally, I don't accept to review a paper if I'm saddled with a lot of academic responsibilities and cannot practically do a rigorous paper review within the stipulated time given by the editor. As scholars, important qualities we must exhibit are INTEGRITY, TRUTH and EXCELLENCE. We must ponder over these traits when we receive an invitation to review a paper. We need not sleep over our colleagues' papers for inhumane periods!

A word to the wise

I share in all the comments made. My current submission to journal has taken more than six months and am still waiting. My view is as a reviewer simply look at your schedule to accept or decline a review and once you accept be able to do so within two months.

You raised an interesting concern. Its is heart rendering when such happens. I know some schools that only calls their students for phd defence when their research work is published. Its this delays alongside other myriad factors that is leading to the promulgation of predatory journals..

Only way, you write a letter to withdraw your article. Once i find the same problem. It was nearly 9 months.

Other colleagues and myself are facing the same issue; still waiting (about 8 months now) for a journal paper to be reviewed. Is it normally a shortcoming of the journal, the reviewers or both?

There should be some guidelines or norms of how much the review process would take. I would suggest that these norms be part of assessing the quality of any journal.

I agree@Osama

It sometimes takes very long. Probably a year or even more.

I think, ultimately, the burden of quality review rests with the expert reviewer community. Like many others have pointed out, some of our colleagues take on this burden knowing fully well that they do not have the luxury of time to submit comments in time. We should make it a principle to desist from this. With two or more missed deadlines, I suspect the editors can do nothing, but to start the whole cycle of reviewer search. In times like this, they (the editors) can help soothe author(s') anxiety by communicating clearly as to what exactly is happening. I believe transparency should be the hallmark of any editorial process. I am of the view that, it should not take more than six (6) months to receive first decision on a manuscript (paper)!

Peter Bai James It is unfortunate you, and many others on the thread, had to go through that. I am glad that, at last, you have received a positive outcome. I wish you all the best on the resubmission. My only hope is that notes are been taken to inform the reform of the peer-review process by the powers that be.

Some revised manuscripts can also take a long time to be accepted and possibly published.

Hi, Dear Colleagues

I think that neither Editors nor Reviewers deserve to be blamed for such long review process, since they do all this as volunteer work. We do estimate well their efforts and recognize the difficulties of their mission especially with the reviewing process.

In the other hand, authors have to work with respect to their obligations (for thesis’s defenses or for reports of project’s progress state) depending on their deadlines for the presentation and the exploitation of their research results (in such long process, these results can become “previous” or even “old” among new published ones!). With less long process authors can manage (improve the paper or look for more specialized journal).

For my case I have a first experience with a paper that, as informed by the editors after divers Emails :

It took 09 months to have a first review response + 07 months for the second review response and acceptation + 05 months to be published.

A second paper is under review, without any response for more than a year now.

Sincerely, Djamel.

I believe as editors, reviewers, etc. we in academia are very much aware of the responsibility associated with taking up such a role. That's the more reason why there are timelines.

It will be very good if we all work to meet such time lines. Seriously if a single paper can take almost 2 years to get published then what is the motivation in research and publishing? We must collectively work together to make things work in academia.

A very interesting thread which just popped into my "recommended for you" apologies for late comments.

I agree with the frustrations but also the reality of the publishing process - editors (themselves often reviewers and doing the day-job in academia or other organisations) encouraging their colleagues also in similar position to take the right amount of time to provide valuable feedback. But there is a reasonable period.

The process is full of points it can pause/break and the impact is massive on processing time. However journals recognise this and editors are continuously encouraged to push the process, but we do it without pay (which is ok) for the reason it is part of our academic duty and everyone recognises this a part of the academic profile (to review, edit and publish). So i echo encouragement but reflect on the reality. some points perhaps to help progress:

1. authors - make it easier for editors and reviewers to understand your submission - technically correct submission is critical; explain clearly and avoid over complex details of your study and highlight (and justify) the importance or contribution of your work to your subject.

2. publishers are now offering other ways of releasing data - "pre-prints" of submissions etc as a step forward which may help (but does not qualify as full publication)

3. review recognition e.g. publons.com review academy can provide you with verified recognition of your review contribution - also many helpful articles

4. volunteer to review in journals from your subject area and provide details of your expertise/interests to the journal AND on verifiable websites e.g. researchgate and others

We are all part of the effort to push our publications up the hill. it will not get easier but there are a few simple suggestions which may help individuals and generally the system

That sounds appallingly unprofessional! I edit Crime Prevention and Community Safety and I aim to get reviews back to the author in 6-7 weeks. If it took more than 10-12 weeks I'd be embarrassed...Rob Mawby

Great insight@Andrew

I act as an Associate Editor on the ‘Health policies, systems and management in low and middle-income countries’ section of BMC Public Health and also on the Editorial Board of SAGE Open. In my responsibility to handle articles (both the initial screening and seeking for potential qualified reviewers), I try all best to deliver a decision as soon as possible, mostly less than 2 months of receipt of a manuscript. I constantly humbly persuade and encourage our reviewers to submit their review report on time and it has really helped. The reviewers and editors are from among authors and, therefore, should not be our own enemies. We must do well to respect the time, energy and synergies that authors commit in writing a manuscript.

Best

--Razak

Absolutely Dr., sometimes the waiting time becomes unbearable and can even cause the author to lose the initial drive for wanting to publish. This has happened to many of us and I believe it is pertinent that Reviewers act in a timely manner when it comes to availing review responses.

Razak M Gyasi

I dont get it Hany Kasban: How can you wait four years for a paper to get published? how relevant will be your findings then? We need more journals with repute to tame others like the BMCs, PLOS and Lancet

I am in a similar situation. I submitted a paper since May 2018, I only got comments from one reviewer nine months later. I submitted the revised version since March 2019 with the status editor assigned, changing twice.....It is so disappointed....

I understand frustrations and prolonged delay in the review process is one indicator editors and publishers are really keen to minimize. Many journals will publish processing statistics to highlight this and show that they have an eye on "performance" of the journal. It is also a topic at many editorial board meetings, where these are regularly arranged. There are reasonable limits however! Some of this thread highlights excessive and certainly unreasonable timing, I agree. Keeping the right sort of pressure on the journal is an OK strategy Peter Bai James , but bear in mind it might result in premature decision making, if there is a particular issue with the submission. That might not go well for an individual article. I echo the comments Razak M Gyasi to show appropriate respect for the effort and significance of the publication process to the author and also for the reviewers and editors!

There is no time limit but I know it depends on the reviewers. This action looks frustrating. The journal may have their specific time but due to dearth of reviewers, they have to agree with the reviewers who have even agreed to review. I suggest you keep on reminding the editor regularly when the manuscript is unnecessarily delayed.

Thanks Peter Bai James. The last time that I wrote, the handling editor did not replied and updated the date for editor assigned, but of course, as soon as I can, I will start to chase them again. It should not be like that, but this is how it works....sadly

Good word@Razak

You should not have waited 15 months, but should have withdrawn the manuscript and sent to another journal. What is special about this journal that held you for 15 months?

Dear colleagues,

after 13 months, I sent an email to the Chief-editor and only three hours later after the email. I got a rejection letter. Then there are two options, one option is that either the revision and the decision were already taken and not submitted, or the second option is that the revision was undertaken between 15:26, the time when I sent the email, and 18:25 of the same day, when I received the comments with the rejection. Anyway, whatever of these options do not look serious from an academic journal.

An after reading the comments, my conclusion is that the revision was undertaken in three hours.

Best regards,

Diana Contrera

It is shameful that some journals do this way without saying anything to the authors. I also submitted an article to a journal in November. 2018. I sent an email 3 months later. The editor replied by saying that they were waiting for the reviewers and so far, 7 months later nothing has happened yet. The journals that do so should be reported and the impact factor should be reduced to zero.

This is painful and a big shame even to some journals with impact factor and they still treat researchers this manner. Such a journal is not worthy of having an impact factor. And in such situation, the paper is rejected eventually! I equally have submitted a manuscript to a journal for the past 11 months. I have written the Editor twice but refused to reply. I think Prof Sarker has made what to do clear. Withdraw your paper and send it to a better and more quality journal. An injustice done to a researcher is an injustice done to the whole world. Because the delay has robbed the world the timely access to the new findings. It is my believe that a quality journal should uphold a decision on a submitted paper within 2 to 3 months.

A journal invited me to submit a manuscript which they promised to published for free. I worked tirelessly to meet the deadline for submission. They held my manuscript for months and eventually rejected it without a single reviewer's comment. Was it because my manuscript was badly written or they couldn't keep to their promise of publishing for free???? Nevertheless, I summoned the courage to resumit the manuscript to another Journal, responded to all the issues raised by the reviewers and finally it was published after two months. Of course, I paid for the publication fee. This is just one of my experiences in getting my paper been published.

it might be useful to add a paragraph to the submission at the time the article is being submitted that the author requires a reliable (and binding?) timeline from the journal or publisher as to when a decision is made either to publish or to release the article, as the content may end up becoming stale and no longer relevant.

For me the maximum is 6 months. Past this time, I will just write to the Editor and remove my paper to submit it elsewhere.

In my opinion as well as form my experience the maximum time taken to review a paper should be not more than 3 months. Past this time, one should write to the Editor and get remove your paper to submit it elsewhere.

Great discussion. Following

The solution is to withdraw from the journal; particularly if the review process exceeds more than four months.