Dear colleagues, I would like to ask a question that to my opinion is considerably more important to everyone than the discussion of the number of authors of an article.
I think that every scientist have suffered from slow review process when one has to wait for many months. I believe that for this case the following options may be useful:
1. Exact date after which the journal's website closes for the reviewer should be established. It should be noted that this practice exists in a number of journals. The reviewer is usually given 4 weeks to review a manuscript. After 6 weeks the review is not accepted, and the editors decide whether to make a decision for publication or send the manuscript to another reviewer.
Dear reviewers, nobody is forcing you to accept articles. If you are busy and cannot finish the work in time, do not take it.
2. The second option: after the deadline, for example, 3 months, if there is no editorial decision, the author has the right to send the article for review to another journal without revoking the manuscript from the editorial office. One paper, of course, cannot be published in two different journals, but this does not mean that it cannot be sent to two different journals for review. The normal text of the author's agreement usually protects the journal, and the author has almost no rights.
3. On the journal website, it is advisable to allocate space for authors' feedback on the work of the editorial Board and evaluation of the editorial Board as a whole. Today almost all the services, from hotels to pizza deliveries, are rated, however, an author cannot leave any feedback on a journal.
How do you feel about these options? If they will be approved by a lot of specialists, we can contact the publishers with appropriate suggestions.
Dr. M. Markov ,
I agree with your suggestions. In most cases, Peer Review is a very slow process. Science is progressing so fast that the paper, or at least the data, may even be outdated during this time.
As I pointed out on many occasions (cf. my comments in various discussions here in RG, but especially my papers - see attached!), the obligatory pre-publication "peer"-review system is inherently and incurably flawed in many respects, and the only effective way to deal with it is to abandon it!
@ Roman Bohdan Hołyński
Dear doctor Hołyński , I completely agree with you. It's not normal for a plasma physicist to evaluate my work on rock physics. Sometimes it is possible to convince the editor-in-chief, especially if you have already published articles in this magazine. More often, the editor-in-chief writes a formal letter and refuses.
Two weeks is slow?
What discipline do you work in?
Publishing is a commercial business.
4-6 weeks is standard for many Open Access journals, but in economics and finance, do not even think about contacting the journal in the first 6-8 months after submission.
@ Chia-Lin Chang
I can't talk about economics and finance journals, but in my field, the average publication time, taking into account all the stages: the review, responses to the reviewer's comments and the final decision of the editor, is 6-8 months. Just look at the average data for Elsevier journals on their websites. I think you choose the wrong publishers. There are also slow journals in my field of science, but they should be avoided.
Dr. M. Markov ,
I agree with your suggestions. In most cases, Peer Review is a very slow process. Science is progressing so fast that the paper, or at least the data, may even be outdated during this time.
Michael: "Publishing is a commercial business" - no! scientific publishing is a service, publisher is a transmitter delivering the results of the researcher's work to the interested readers (first of all to other researchers who would use them in their own studies). So, the role of a publisher is like that of a postman delivering letters to the addressees, or a pharmacy transferring medicines to the pacients. A publisher who considers publishng simply a commercial business entitling him to interfere with the content of submitted paper or delay (e.g. by prolonged "peer"-reviewing) its publication, should restrict his activity to porno-magazines or scandalmongering gutter-papers - as a scientific publisher he is a dishonest pest!
I was thinking this only affects the early researchers like me until I come across this thread. Thanks for sharing this. I submitted a manuscript to a journal in Economics and Finance in June this yesterday and surprisingly the manuscript was still on the editorial check even as at the month of August. I mail one of the editors of the journal who promised to take up the case in July. The manuscript was not attended to until the month of September after I had to mail the Chief editor himself. Even my mail was not replied to. I just found out that the paper was on review a day or two days later.
I think there is a need to put some appropriate checks to fast-track review process. Or else, this will reduce the progress in scientific methods despite its advantages. I agree with M. Markov, there should be a means to rate editorial board in a manner that will allow authors to express their views on their performance.
To M. Markov:
Leading journals in any discipline are controlled by well-known publishers, so the decision to submit a paper for possible publication is predetermined.
There is no such thing as "choosing the wrong publisher".
To Roman Bohdan Hołyński :
Publishers expect to make a profit from their "service", so it remains a commercial business.
Michael: A postman also expects to make a profit from his service, but what would you say if he censors your letters before delivery, then accepts some, rejects others, and requires you to change their contents according to his suggestions, at that extending these procedures for months? There are some professions (priest, doctor, policeman, postman, or - just - scientific publisher) where "business" attitude is only as long justifiable as it does not contradict the primary function - who places maximization of profit above the declared service, is simply a dishonest impostor!
To Roman Bohdan Hołyński :
There is no connection between publishing academic papers and delivering mail.
All international publishers are profit oriented.
Statement of fact.
Michael: Fortunately not all scientific publishers are profit-oriented (e.g. most of my papers have been published by science-oriented publishers!). But, unfortunately, you are right in that the profit-oriented molochs like Elsevier usually win the competition, successfully strengthen their oligopoly, and progressively eliminate the honestly scientific rivals... Honesty is nowadays not profitable - not only in science...
"There is no connection between publishing academic papers and delivering mail" - and what, in your oinion, is the significant (in this context) difference?
Roman Bohdan Hołyński, Michael John McAleer
Dear colleagues, I think that the work of a scientific publishing house is really similar to that of a Federal Express or DHL postal service. In this sense, the doctor Roman Bohdan Hołyński is right. Personally, I have no claims to the technical work of the leading scientific publishing houses, because after the decision of the scientific editors of the articles go quickly to Springer and Elsevier. These are business projects. The work of the scientific editorial office itself is not a pure business. All consideration is delayed at the level of the scientific Editorial Board: reviewers and editor-in-chief. My proposals are aimed at accelerating their work. In particular, my last proposal is aimed at accelerating the work of the scientific Editorial Board, and I hope to receive support from publishers here.
To M. Markov:
I wish you well, but that will not happen.
Publishers have no connection whatsoever to a postal service.
Anyone with any editorial experience will understand why.
Michael John McAleer
Dear Allen, this analogy is not so important. In opening the discussion, I meant something else: to discuss what the author should do if the manuscript is "stuck" in a review. Such delays create a lot of problems: My student's thesis defense is delayed due to the defense requires to have at least 2 published articles. At the end of the project, which I have already finished besides the report, it is necessary to submit accepted for publication or published articles, etc. After all, if I can't speed up the reviewers' work, then I should at least have the opportunity to say what I think about the editorial office and not on my website, but on the journal website, so that the authors think before sending an article to the journal. Now the author is practically powerless in this sense.
To M. Markov:
It is regrettable that the reviewers for a PhD thesis are dragging the chain.
If a review is unnecessarily delayed, it is essential to find a new reviewer.
Dear colleagues, I think that the discussion is developing in the wrong direction. At the beginning of the discussion I made 3 specific suggestions on how to speed up the review process. If not difficult, try to evaluate them by writing the first Yes, the second no, and why.
If you notice that a particular journal has a very slow peer review process, then ignore it, if you don't have the patience. By the time they cannot have sufficient articles to publish an issue, they will become frantic and the desperation will force them to do things differently. It's not a do-or-die affair to publish with a particular journal. If any feels they are too slow, then they are open to look elsewhere.
Peter: "peer reviewing itself is more of a problem than a solution" - very gently formulated but perfectly true! In fact, it is a source of many serious problems without providing any real solution
Dear colleagues, not often, but I get frankly boorish reviews. For example, in the Geophysical Journal International the reviewer wrote: “I do not understand why I got to review this cookbook with recipes for calculating the elastic properties of rocks”. And that's all. The editor-in-chief rejected the manuscript, despite the normal (constructive) review of the second reviewer. The article was published in another journal, and is one of my most cited articles.
Second example. Journal Water Resource Research. One reviewer “wrote accept as is”, a second reviewer wrote "minor revision", and the editor-in-chief rejected the article. In this case, I believe, disrespect was shown not only to the authors, but also to the reviewers. As a result, the article was published with a long delay in another prestigious journal.
I understand that many editors are more accustomed to the supply of tequila and avocado from Mexico, rather than scientific articles, but you still need to respect the authors.
That is why I believe that punt 3 of my proposals is necessary.
To Peter Breuer:
Excellent discussion of a conference from a personal perspective.
I may admit to similar experiences as many others, but I never complain as I accept that large organizations will not change quickly, if at all, and I do not need to vent my spleen.
The EU is moving to Open Access and away from predatory publishers, including < many names withheld >
Dear Makov
your proposals all seem to be very pertinent and important. No author due to institutional or personal reasons would like to take a verylong time tomorrow publish a single article.
Nevertheless, there are publication ethics that need to be followed
Most predatory journals publish without review or with very sketchy review.
Point number 2 goes against publication ethics. Only one journal can review a manuscript per instance
I agree with points 1 and 3
Langsi D. Jacob: "there are publication ethics that need to be followed. Most predatory journals publish without review or with very sketchy review" - and why, in your opinion, reviews would be so important? What their presence vs. absence has to do with publication ethics?
"Only one journal can review a manuscript per instance" - why?
@ Langsi D. Jacob
Dear Dr. Langsi D. Jacob ,
I agree that it is unethical to publish an article in two journals at the same time. I'm talking about something else: if the editorial Board keeps the article for a long time on the review (for example, 3 or 4 months), the author can submit the manuscript for consideration in another journal, without withdrawing it from the editorial office. If the manuscript is accepted in two journals, the author decides in which of the two to publish it.
If you sell an apartment, you have the right to use the services of two realtors, although the apartment will eventually sell one. The status quo protects not the author but the publisher. I think about the authors.
Regards,
Mikhail Markov
Peter: Obligatory "peer"-reviewing is itself, from several viewpoints, socially unacceptable - and nevertheless it has been socially accepted...
Dear Dr. M. Markov,
I am totally agree with all of your precious suggestions and other colleagues as well, but i am thinking weather there is a way to apply them in the future or it will be" just a discussion"?
Best regards,
Dear Roman Bohdan
Nothing written is perfect. there is always need for a second person (s) to read through it, where aspects of grammar, methodology and even general science could be evaluated and corrected. This is the importance of manuscript review.
Generally, at least 2 and at most 3 reviewers are necessary for peer review to be considered well done.
Predatory journals usually don't go through this process because of several unethical reasons that I would not listen here.
Furthermore, before submitting to a second journal, make sure you make an official withdrawal of your manuscript from the first one.
Good journals always pose that question of 'is this manuscript already published or under peer review in a different journal?'
so, you need to withdraw from the first, before submitting to the second
Dear Dr Markov
Review could be a tedious process. Good journals go though difficulty most of the time to get good and competent reviewers for certain manuscripts.
Most good journals also charge ARTICLE PROCESSING FEES (APC) only after the peer review and correction has been done.
Unscrupulous authors, after going through good peer review in one good journal (and making good corrections on their manuscripts), move over to other journals for fast and at times, cheap publication
Either way, relationships are bound to be strained between the author and the journal which did peer review and was not told that the article had been submitted to a different journal for publication
Both journals could also end up publishing the same article (seen as fraud in the scientific world by the author)
WITHDRAW FROM THE FIRST BEFORE SUBMITTING TO THE SECOND
Langsi D. Jacob
Dear Dr. Jacob,
I have participated in the work of good journals with a high impact factor both as a reviewer and as a guest editor. So I'm familiar with the review process. Journals are the best in the world of publishing Elsevier is free. Terms of publication in these journals are usually quite acceptable, from 4 to 9 months. Publications are paid mainly in American journals, which are published by American scientific societies. I'm talking about abnormal situations where a reviewer holds an article for a long time.
I have repeated several times that it is unethical to publish the same results in two journals. My proposal does not refer to publication, but to submission for review. These are different things. It is unethical, in my opinion, when the reviewer does not return the article to the editor within six months. Generally speaking, the notion of what is ethical and what is not forms a scientific society. And ethical norms change over time.
Best Regards,
Mikhail Markov
Langsi D. Jacob: “Nothing written is perfect” – this may or may not be true, but even if it is, why do you think that what the author [having for years specifically studied particular field (in my case, e.g., taxonomy of Indo-Pacific Buprestidae), and then having spent months on analysing concretely some specific problem witin this field (e.g. the relationships among the species of the genus Psiloptera Dej.), then again weeks on summarizing the results, formulating conclusions, “polishing” the text, &c.], was not able to make “perfect”, will be “perfected” by a reviewer, usually only superficially (if at all...) acquainted with the topic?
And why do you consider the “aspects of grammar” (and similar “ornamentations” unrelated to the subject of the study) so important as to warrant delay of publication even if only by few days, to say nothing of weeks or months? Scientific publication is not poetry or belles-lettres, here essential is presentation of results of the study and their interpretation, while questions of linguistically proper application of indefinite article or past perfect tense is neither of primary nor even of secondary or tertiary importance!
To sum up, delaying the publication in search for errors and imperfections which (by definition stupid?) author had evidently committed but (by definition incomparably more wise and competent?) reviewer will of course be able to correct, is one of [only one of – for (many!) others see e.g. the attached paper!] those aspects of the obligatory “peer”-reviewing system which make it – to use Peter’s expression – socially unacceptable: if that enormous time and energy unproductively wasted by editors and reviewers on finding quarrel in a straw, and by authors on detailed (and often unsuccessful...) explications, could be used by them on effective research, scientific study would be not only much more enjoyable but, first of all, incomparably more effective enterprise!
M. Markov: I'm happy to hear that you find it interesting! Best wishes!
Roman
Peter: I do not really understand what kind of “supporting facts and experimental results” would you expect? – I’m taking part in a discussion, i.e. I present my opinions. I do not question any established facts, but only express my views as to what is good and what is wrong – I cannot imagine what kind of “experimental results” could produce “facts” “supporting” my conviction that scientific publication is different from poetry and so should be evaluated according to different criteria, or that a priori assumption that a reviewer is always much more competent than the author (“specialized” in a given topic) is, to say the least, bizarre?
“what’s the plan? Everyone else also start their own journal?” – why “everyone” (separately)? Every group of scientists working on more or less related problems and sharing the negative opinion of “peer”-reviewing system can launch a non-reviewed journal, and every single scientist can publish in such! E.g. the official publisher of Procrustomachia is the “Informal Uncensored Scientists Group” which – as well as the journal itself – is open to everybody (see attached file!). Well, this is the idea, in practice the author, publisher, editor, printer, book-binder &c. rolled into one is dr. Roman B. Hołyński – but this is only because only Roman B. Hołyński ventured to undertake the risk: as Hungarians justly point out, “swimming with the current you move always downwards”, but proceeding upstream demands effort and devotion... My effort and devotion proved sufficient to “survive” – despite shabby intrigues and vehement slanderous assaults by some kind colleagues... – for four years and to publish 20 papers (now I’m working on 21-th: Procrustomachia 4, 5); would some other Colleagues have supported me (either by publishing some of their papers sine censura, or only by public expression of the support) the results would be more spectacular and even the hostility less obstinate and less dangerous, but this is not dependent upon me: now I am alone...
I hope, sooner or later scientists will realize that it is not enough to be passively dissatisfied with, and complain on serious problems created by “peer”-reviewing system: some active opposition and support for alternatives is needed – whether I will live to see this, is another question!
Peter: I would rather try to avoid using cannons to kill a mosquito... To state that elephants are bigger than mice I do not need statistical analysis, and similarly no statistics is (in my opinion, of course...) necessary to ascertain that enormous amount of (editor's, reviewer's and - last not least... - author's) time and effort could be spared and used for effective studies if obligatory "peer"-reviewing system is abandoned. Moreover, like in any discussion, I present my opinion, and my opinion is a unique "entity", by definition not amenable to statistical analyses (of course, you may disagree, in which case I would expect rational - not necessarily supported by statistics and/or experiments...- counter-arguments)! But, first of all, let's not overcompliccate simple questions ("Everything should be explained as simply as possible" - Albert Einstein)!
"start up a journal, set its policies" - this is exactly what I have done...
All the best!
Roman
Thank you, dear M. Markov, for raising this important and thorny topic.
I completely agree with you, the reviewers need to be responsible if their time is limited and they cannot review the article and delivered it on time it is better to not to take it at all. The problem may lie in the journal itself. Most kinds of these journals choose reviewers on the basis of reducing or eliminating the review cost. This either leads to retaining very few reviewers for hundreds of articles that need to be reviewed, or selecting people who are not competent and not responsible. Indeed, a professional and committed person does not waste his time on pointless things.
I think the solution is to digitize journals websites or platforms and set deadlines for review, a rating system for authors (give feedback about particular reviewer) and option to withdraw the manuscript after the deadline due in order to make the publication process more transparent and accurate.
Warm regards!
Dear colleagues, I ask you, in your answers, to evaluate my three proposals, which are contained in the question at the beginning of the discussion. The first proposal has been implemented in several prestigious journals, but unfortunately not all of them. I have not heard a single objection to the third sentence so far. With respect, Mikhail Markov.
Dear Dr. Markov,
I worked for an international journal for about 3 years. We used the first two of your proposals in this journal, and the results were significant. Furthermore, we were watching the performance of every reviewer closely. Thus, reviewers were excluded from the reviewers' list when no appropriate performance was taken. Also, sometimes we sent manuscripts to one or two more reviewers than needed. Hence, we could achieve the results of the review process on time, even if some reviewers were unfaithful. Ultimately, I agree with the third proposal too.
Best regards,
Saeede
Editors need to be careful to select reviewers who have sufficient subject matter expertise to do justice to the article they’re reviewing.
Journals must be serious onthe peer review process.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts