I have recently run into an issue with a couple of journals that I am writing manuscripts for that involve the submission guidelines in the instructions for authors being different from the apparent expectations of the editors.
I have revised one manuscript in particular three times already because the submission site/quality control expectations and the editors have different expectations for things such as reviewer suggestions and most especially references. Everything from the formatting of the references to the number allowed has been inconsistent with this particular journal.
I am wondering if this is a common occurrence? It has me so frustrated I don't want to ever submit to this journal again. Thanks for your thoughts!
The biggest challenge I face is when a reviewer does not agree to review a resubmission. As a result, authors get conflicting responses because later "new" reviewers raise issues that should have been raised in the first round of review. Or subsequent reviewers ask the same questions as earlier reviewers and ignore the previous answers.
When I review a paper, I always agree to review the subsequent versions.
This is not the same situation you see, Kelly, but still reflects divergent perspectives that make life harder for researchers.
Hello Kelly Parker
Your frustrations are entirely reasonable and justifiable! I agree it's terrible that the guidelines and the expectations are so divergent...
What can you do? I would suggest you can clarify the requirements with the editor or editorial assistant (who usually has an administrative role rather than a content role) and ask them to clearly answer or address those areas so that your re-submission is, let us say, satisfactory to them. Basically, we need them to state "what the do you want". I am sure you can express it more eloquently than that.
Alternatively, unless you are particularly attached to that particular journal, I would take my manuscript elsewhere that is more appreciative of the work and time you have invested.