One year waiting for a review is too long!

With the increasing number of manuscripts that editors are dealing with in recent years, it is not surprising that some mistakes may occur with the selection of reviewers or processing of the reviewers' comments. Thus,

If you really think that the review process of one of your manuscripts has been unfair, then you should contact the handling editor of your manuscript with a detailed and sounded explanation of your disagreements. However, before you complain, you should read the comments of the editor and reviewers very careful, because it could be the case that the ms. was not rejected by the reviewer(s) or one of them gave a poor evaluation, but it is the decision of the editor to reject the manuscript. The reasons could be technical (related to the presentation of the ms.) or conceptual (the content is not of interest for the journal or the theme is not treated appropriately, etc.). However, if still you believe that the process is not transparent enough or that the handling editor has been unfair, then you could write to the main editor, explaining your case and providing substantial arguments.

Dear Dr Arratia,

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, you are right 'One year waiting for a review is too long!'

It happened for a couple of my papers in the past and also happening now. One of my paper I submitted to an international journal is lying there for 7 months without a single review and I sent at least 5/6  reminders.

I was wondering whether it is happening specifically to climate science journal?  However, I never have heard similar sort of experiences from my colleague or friends. One reason could be my paper focuses on 'the role of natural factors in climate'. It is not the mainstream area of CO2 led global warming and climate change research. I feel it is the area of my research and hence unnecessary jamming, delaying and blocking from publishing.

If various important research areas in climate science suffer blocking by editors, while a particular area is promoted, how there can be true progress in climate science?  

Here I would like to thank ResearchGate platform. After raising the issue of transparency in the climate science review process, I now find the situation has improved a lot. Many of my papers have now gone out for the review process. Here I am sharing my recent experience.

I submitted one paper that shows forcing due to natural drivers are underestimated/ missed by models and hence do not follow the mainstream climate science agenda. Also, it was a single-authored paper without having any influential, high profile co-author.

The editor was kind enough to send it out for reviews. After keeping the paper for more than one month, the first reviewer withdrew from the review process. The editor later managed to get a new reviewer and hence there was an initial delay. After completion of the first review cycle, the editor gave major revision comments, where one reviewer gave minor revision. That particular reviewer showed he/she is very knowledgeable in that area and the main comment was to add few more plots (even he/she mentioned which plots I should add to strengthen my findings). Incorporating those comments, I found the paper improved drastically. Now after 40 days of revised submission, I came to know that both the reviewers again withdrew from the review process. The editor informed me that it will suffer more delay as he had to start the review process again to collect two new review report.

Hope sharing more such stories will help improve transparency in climate science peer review system.

Dear Indrani,

It is possible that the experience that you have with the submission of your manuscript has nothing to do with transparency of the review process or with journals in your area of expertise. The problem that many editors face at the moment, and this is independent of the subject, is the lack of reviewers willing to collaborate. There are too many manuscripts in need of review and not so many people that want to be a reviewer. To be a reviewer means knowledge, care, and good disposition from the person doing the review, but it also demands a lot of time! This is a day-by-day growing problem and probably, it is time that journals and publishers begin to face it properly.

With my best wishes to you and your manuscripts!

Thanks, Gloria for your nice comments and your interest in the climate science review process.

If you find your research is delaying and suffering for a long period of time due to some unknown reasons, while your peers are able to publish quite quickly and frequently, I thought why not to raise that issue to the proper authority to establish its transparency? This is an important issue because publishing in scientific journals play a very crucial role in shaping a career.

I perfectly agree with your points about difficulties in the peer-reviewing system. In that circumstances, everyone should suffer equally, but unfortunately, this is not the case. I feel there should be some policy in place where editors and reviewers will be accountable and their scientific integrity and independence are monitored. There may be databases of authors (and also areas of climate science) to monitor who (and which area of climate science) are victimised and who are favoured by the current system. It may be one step to improve fairness in the peer review process.

Dear Gloria

You have assessed the problem quite objectively I agreed with your point.

Regards

I want to share another personal experience of peer-review system. Hope people will have few glimpses how it affects different people differently. Scientific journals may work on fairness and improve peoples’ experience.

I submitted one paper in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP), a leading climate science journal during May 2017. It was a single-authored paper in the field of solar-climate related area. After one month, I received a letter where they informed that they could not find any Co-Editors, ready to handle my manuscript through the regular editor call procedure. They asked me if I can approach any editor personally looking through the name from the site of the journal. I checked the site and wrote personal mails to experts in related areas but did not receive any response. I raised my point verbally(/via mail) to a few senior scientists who I had personal connection and thought they could be able to help. I assumed they had the power and influence to improve transparency in peer-review system. But the situation turned worse. During middle of August, I received a mail from the journal mentioning that they finally found a co-editor. The co-editor was familiar to me and she did her Phd two years after my PhD and it is again not in solar-climate related area. In three days time, she outrightly rejected that paper stating a very few lines comment. It stated that the paper does not improve the understanding of the previous works in this field. In this regard, she referred three of my published papers and one paper for which I was the reviewer (anonymous). Then it became quite clear to me that she did not understand any of my previous works, which could be quite normal in the complicated field like solar-climate studies. I wrote a letter to the appointed executive editor describing her few lines unsupportive comments for not initiating review process, but as expected I did not receive any response. However, it already took/wasted few months to take that decision on an important research and again without any proper peer-review.

Fortunately, after starting a discussion in the ResearchGate on transparency in peer-reviewing system, four of my first/single-authored papers are revised since November, and three are accepted. I am grateful for such platform! I am sure many people like me will also be benefited.

Here I would like to share another experience of the biased peer reviewing system in climate science research.

I submitted one single-authored paper at Frontiers in Earth Science, ten months ago. I chose that journal because I noticed they had a transparent peer review system and had a very good reputation for rapid publication. The median time between submission to publication is only three months. An important thing about this journal is that when an article is published, they mention the name of reviewers and handling editor. In that journal, there is a nice interactive platform to check all activities of reviewers.

My paper was read by five anonymous reviewers and all kept the paper for at least one month each.  Initial three reviewers withdrew from the review process at the end- probably they did not want to show their name printed with that controversial topic. Two of them withdrew at the final stage of revision even after keeping the revision for one month. I incorporated all their comments in the revision and one reviewer even had a minor revision.

Hence again two new reviewers were appointed and the new review process is also now complete. Both the new reviewers endorsed the manuscript two and half months ago. However, due to some unknown reason, after the review finalised stage, which was completed at the beginning of June, there is not any progress/communication in spite of several reminders. As two reviewers and editor seems ok in publishing their name but it is still lying with chief editors. I had written emails to the editor and chief editor, but the situation did not change and I do not know what should I do.

I am confused with this two and half months time after the finalisation stage, where the median time between submission to publication of this journal is only three months. I wonder whether important research findings those need rapid publication should be suffering such unnecessary delays.

Hope such discussion will improve transparency in Climate Science peer reviewing system.

Dear indrani

i once waited eight months for a review. Finally I wrote to the journal that I withdrew the paper. Got immediate response, they would publish. It was the best paper I had ever written, but they had sent it to an alcoholic, who was hardly conscious most of the time.

Harry

Dear Harry,

It is so nice to receive your response!!

Thanks that you shared your personal experience. There are many areas of peer reviewing system those need to be addressed. Science should not suffer for any of those issues. Nowadays, climate science seems suffering the most.

For that journal (I mentioned), the interactive editorial mailing system is very well organised. I could send mail at a time to the editor, copied to chief editor of Atmospheric Science, chief editor of Earth Science and editorial office of the journal. All the editors are very renowned in their respective fields and I checked their background. Hence if one missed my mail of concern, others could have taken the initiative. In two and a half month period after writing few mails, I only received one reply from the editor who mentioned that it is still with the chief editor who is now responsible. 

Because of the nature of that paper, a rapid publication was required, that is another reason I chose that particular journal. If I withdraw it now then I have to wait for at least another 10-12 months to complete another set of peer-review for a new journal. Being a paper of controversial in nature it is a normal time of reviewing. If you remember my sole-authored paper ‘The role of the sun in atmosphere-ocean coupling’, (2014), International Journal of Climatology, 34 (3), 655-677. The first review report came after 2 years, even after writing several reminders to the chief editor.

Hope the situation of peer review in climate science will turn better.

Thanks again for your comment!

You are welcome

I am glad to inform that my paper is now accepted! https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2018.00136/abstract

I am so thankful to ResearchGate platform.