Unfortunately, I had a really bad experience with my last submission. I have submitted a paper in a journal 7 months ago and the manuscript is still under review. Everytime i contact the editorial manager they reply "your manuscript is still under review". What i am supposed to do in this case? Any suggestion?
PS: The journal is supposed to be a "good one".
This is not necessarily unusually long for the review process - depending on the journal, especially if the paper is long, detailed or has an unusual content. Check the journal details, they sometimes explain how long to expect review to take and if your manuscript has now exceeded that, then press the editorial team for a reason. Most often it is because review is a voluntary activity conducted by scientists who are themselves already busy and have to make time for activity. If these same scientists also teach, then the time allocation will depend on teaching activities too. It can be a real juggle to fit all these things in. Also, some of the better journals become overburdened with manuscripts, leading to delays.
Thank you Dr. Whittington for the explanation but seven months is really a long time even the review is a voluntary activity!
You are still lucky Asma. There are instances where journal took one and half year and shared the rejected message. I agree with Andrew that depending on journal and the content, it may take longer time.
Unfortunately, sometimes this just happens. It also depends on the editor: some editors may decide to find a new reviewer if the previous one does not send a review on time and does not even promise to do it in the near future (in some journals, reviewers can also tell the editor if they are not available for some periods, then, the editors will not send any papers to them, but maybe in your journal this was not possible for some reason). Still, as you have waited for 7 months already, it may probably make sense to wait until you get the reviews, maybe they'll come soon. Good luck!
Thank you, i think this is the reason, reviewers are not available and don't send their decision soon so the Editor choose an other one and so on...
Thank you Ramzi for sharing your opinion. I really don't believe that i will be hearing from them soon, because the MS is under "reviewers assigned" again! that means that soon they will change it to "under review" which will take another 3 months.... This is annoying especially it is supposed to be a good journal!
I want to reply on Nakul's message. Really it's a big chame for a journal to take such a long time just to reject later. I think that Journals must care about their reputation. I had same experience (unfortunately not sufficient explanation for it, from the journal side) and I'll never send the paper to that journal again. 2 month must be a limit for the journal to give you positive or negative answer. This time is more than enough. I alweys make my task if I am a reviewer in a few days.
Thank you George! I hope that every researcher work and think the same as you do.
Zeiri - let me share a little story with you - although I do agree with those that have stated that 7-months is not too unreasonable. Several years ago, I had an article accepted after more than two-years in review. There were a number of reasons. After about a year when I first queried what had happened - I was told one of the reviewers had 'lost' their review - so it went back out to another reviewer. After another long period, I found out that the editor had changed and a new online administration system had been put in place and had 'lost' my files. When the new editor offered to send it out again - i said 'forget it'. I think that this made them feel a bit embarrased - so they reviewed it themselves in about a week - and it was accepted - and 'fast-tracked' through the system to press. It wasn't a great experience (and I haven't submitted to them since) - but 'every cloud has a silver lining'.
Dear Dr. Whitehead, thank you for sharing your story, i am discussion actualy with coauthors to withdraw the manuscript. It is really annoying.
Zeiri - no problem. If it were me - I would wait a little longer - otherwise you will have 'wasted' that 7 months. After say another month, I would contact the editor and state what you intend to do. Thta might spur them into action - rather than a standard response
Dear Zeiri, I think the seven months of review, it's little unexpected (especially now days!). Because everybody wants to get published fast as well as journals may not want to delay the process which ultimately affects them by reduced quality submission. Although above stated matter is quite biased in it self, most of the journals claim to publish fast and in time. We also experienced the same and it's been 4 months.
As fas as I know and I guess, they won't answer exactly about progress of your research paper. We can ask but all we get is "still under review/soon you will be notified/keep checking on our portal".
Dear Zeiri, I cannot understand how your manuscript has taken so long to be reviewed. This can only be due to laziness or incompetence of the editor. I review for about 40 journals and I make a point of completing my reviews as a priority. Of course there are times when a review cannot be completed due to other commitments but all the editors I deal with provide a due date and if I have been a bit slow for any reason I can expect a reminder within a day or two of that deadline. When I receive a reminder I make sure I complete the review on time. Just because reviewing is a voluntary exercise is no excuse for delay. If you cannot keep to deadlines you should withdraw, and the editors should sack lazy reviewers. In these times there is no excuse because most on-line submission systems ask you to suggest reviewers to save them the trouble of finding someone. So, if they have selected someone you have suggested it means that your colleagues are either lazy or biased. My problem in this is always finding someone I have not collaborated with during the past few years as you, and the journals, do not wish to a) introduce bias from that source or to b) overburden some individuals.
I would normally expect a review process to take approximately 6-8 weeks. Two weeks for the primary editorial review; 3-4 weeks for the reviewers to comment; and the remainder for the editorial staff to chase and collate responses. Many journals are much faster and a lot of on-line journals offer 28 day review.
I did have a problem recently with a delay after review and editorial comment and acceptance but that was as a result of a) a misunderstanding of how editorial changes were to be made and b) a glitch in the electronic system that failed to flag this up. After 3 months I chased it up with one of the editors and the problem was resolved within days.
Much as it may be unnerving for you, I suggest it is now time to write a firm letter to the editor pointing out that this length of time is unacceptable and that it does nothing for the reputation of the journal. If they cannot get their system sorted quickly you wish to withdraw your manuscript and you could even make the suggestions that you will name and shame them. It depends on their level of prestige and how much that might impact on them. But I think this something for you to judge. Good luck with whatever you choose and hopefully this will not happen to you again.
Dear Dr. Ian Burgess, Thank you so much. Indeed it is still under review and i have written to them that i would like to withdraw it. It is really annoying.
Zeiri - from my previous post, more than a month has passed. Of course, this is a 'slow' time for many who are caught up in the festive season. However, I'm inclined to agree with Ian. I review for a similar amount of journals (30+) and, while the review response times vary, the more recent trend is for more timely responses - often only 2-3 weeks. As with Ian, if this is the request, then I always review within this time. It might affect the quality of my review - then so-be-it if that is the voluntary pressure that I am under. At least you get feedback and I will endeavor to give as best feedback as I can. You are now 8 months with your submission and, like the previous example I gave, I would assume that there is a problem in the process - and is probably not unique to you. The editor is probably fully aware of the problem - so I think that is a good idea to pressure them in the strongest terms that you can. Of course, you also have to decide when that seems like a futile quest.
I will already sent them an email and told them that if i don't have a decision within a short time i like to withdraw it. I asked them many times that i can help them if there is any problem with finding a reviewer, but they still did not reply. From the last e-mail i think that the editor has been changed. The problem that it is supposed to be a good journal.
Zeiri, I agree with Dean, there must be a problem with the editorial process at the journal and if the publisher is not aware of it they should be.
Pressure in the strongest terms is the way forward - maybe recruit your head of department to write a strong letter on your behalf so that it is flagged up to them that they cannot just push you around as a junior researcher but that as a "good journal" they could lose reputation because senior colleagues are now aware of the problem and could guide others away from that journal or publisher.
Remember they are not doing you a favour by considering your manuscript. Journal publishers are in business - not for fun, not for the good of mankind, but for money. If their reputation declines - as most people observe in impact factors - by not receiving manuscripts from those researchers likely to be cited elsewhere - they lose out commercially in the longer term. So, if your department head receives the same lack of interest as you have, I suggest a letter to the publisher may be in order asking why their editorial process is failing.
Yes Zeiri - more good advice from both Ian and Ramzi. Your experiences seem to be mirroring the one I detailed back in December; change of editors etc. With a little pressure you never know - you might shame them into quickly accepting your manuscript - just to 'save face'. Where I've seen this happen before, I agree with Ian, it usually is 'the thin edge of the wedge' - just watch their impact factors 'plummet'.
I had just same bad experience. During 4 month I was waiting answer from the journal. Even this journal asks to the reviewer, beforhand, do they accept to review MS or not and if they do, than return the reviewed MS within 1 month, one of the reviewer has not sent his answer yet, however it seems he accepted to review, which is really not serious from his/her side. I think in this case editor must be little more active to push the reviewers and same time to put their names in black list of reviewers!
Yes, it is totally the responsability of the editor! There must be a black list for editors too!
Mine regular article got accepted exactly after 7 months of my first submission. It was IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, and traditional submission. I am satisfied. Best of luck!
I had just same bad experience. I have submitted a revised manuscript 6 months ago to a journal and the manuscript is still with editor! the enquiry message that I sent through the online service has been, unsurprisingly, ignored.
This manuscript was originally submitted to journal back in August 2013!
Whether or not 7 months is too long depends on the type of manuscript. Sometimes my reviewers seem to perform a little experiment themselves to see whether they would be able to replicate the study. However, in most cases, 7 months is too long. My journal needs about 3 weeks to view the submission (we receive around 600 p.a.). If the manuscript is not desk rejected, the editor is allowed two weeks to respond, the reviewers another two weeks to accept/reject the job. After these 7 weeks (maximum), the reviewer is allowed 60 days (i.e., another 2 months) to write a report.
Thus, we need some hours to 3 weeks to desk reject, but around 4 months to accept a manuscript (minimum).
If a really bad manuscript manages to pass through the filters to reviewers, many of them are likely to send us a note with most relevant arguments against the paper immediately. In this case, the editor will mostly reject the paper after a few days.
In the list, I see some names from Iran. They should try to find out whether some other mechanisms lie behind the delays.
Zeiri...what was the outcome of this quest, finally??? have you got your paper published the same journal or in different journal.
Would like to know, is it worth to wait till 7 months??
Thanks....
I am a member of editorial stuff. The problem is that the is a time frame for reviewers to accept the manuscript. Sometimes after the defined time frame the reviewer is un-invited. also if one accept the invitation sometime the review is not made in the defined time frame for the reviewing process. Therefore you can have the first reviewer accepting the review in the same day and the next that you found accept is after 3 weeks.
But 7 months is really too much
To be honest, most established journals don't care about your manuscript. They often have inadequate number of staff - they are often too lazy. They take ages to respond your simple query. Therefore, I have decided to publish all my research only in those journals that are quick and care for your manuscript and valuable time. PLOS ONE, PeerJ, and journals from the Dove Medical Press are probably the best journals in this regard. Their staff respond to your queries quickly (within hours) and assign an editor and send your papers for review within a week. Therefore, it is not surprising that their "first decision time" is only 30-40 days. PeerJ's average "submission to publication" time is just 51 days - it shows their dedication towards the work. Plus, they don’t reject articles based on determinations of ‘audience’ or ‘impact’ or ‘degree of advance’. Moreover, the submission systems these journals use are far better than those age old "manuscript central" submission systems used by "so-called" established journals. Plus they are open access as well - I believe in open access because most of my research is funded by the public money - my salary comes from taxes paid by my countrymen - I don't want my research to be locked behind the paywalls of private publication houses... rather I want it to be available to all for free. I urge all of you to stop being the slave of slow time-consuming well-established academic publishing houses and publish in these new kids on the block.
Some of the comments here suggest that 7 months OK. I can't speak for every academic subject, but in my subject (neuroscience), 7 months is most definitely NOT OK. Even those journals who take ages to actually publish, should really get back within a month or so - perhaps two months if it's over the Summer break.
If it wasn't a 'good' journal, I would definitely recommend removing the manuscript and resubmitting elsewhere. If you can find somewhere else that is 'good', then do it. A 7 month review process doesn't sound to me like a good omen for acceptance in any case.
Slow review times does not reflect a "plus characteristic" of the journal in question. The reviewing task is unfortunately still based on a volunteering basis , which makes quite unpredictable the review times. From personal experience I know that we send out many emails reminding the reviewers to finish their tasks, but we succeed in about 60% of the time.
Having a large body of reviewers can accelerate things, but again very few journals can claim that they have a large body of qualified reviewers,
In one of the answers above someone suggested to use open Access journals which guarantee faster reviewing times. There are many ramifications here I don't want to discuss , I will simply mention that this option requires a solid funding since the majority of Open Access journals will request at least $ 1000 to publish an article.
I don't think that there is a good response to the question .. everything is relative .. for me (I work in Hearing Science) 2 months is considered a long time. A paper we sent to PLOS-1 was delayed 3 months , so we had to withdraw it and re-submit to another journal. Of course if you are a "starting author" this option might be difficult .. but again there are no easy ways about this.
I agree with Stavros.
Maybe some of you will disagree with my next suggestion but as in everything the money can, I stress the word CAN, improve things. For example, these reviews COULD be payed. It can be only simbolic sum, let's say 10$, or even 100$ what is 'interesting' sum for one review. We all are only humans and some kind of reward is necessary. Also (maybe this is only for my culturological milleau) people take things more seriously when the job is payed.
One of the options is that the final paymant would be decided by the journal editors. Every reviewer (at least in Elsevier's Editorial manager) is scored. So as revieweres gets CME credits for scores for over 70, these can also be paid. We all see that journals are more and more Open Access with payments per article with (too much) sum of money. The part of that can go to (excellent) reviewers.
This is one suggestion that can be discussed and better defined as one of the modalitties for faster and more scientifically important review process
I also agree with Goran .. and as a matter of fact I have asked the same question a few days ago on whether reviewers should be paid considering that the open-access model had really grown recently.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_Reviewers_of_Open_Access_Journals_be_paid
Yes payment can fasten process, however many countries scientist can't pay because of their low income, therefore they always search free journals. But if someone needs fast publication they must consider to pay, and also choose the right journal, because many journals even you pay needs quite some time to publish your paper.
Is there a difference between 'reviewer invited' and 'under review', as I have a long period of 'reviewer invited' status without change?
In the journals where I am an editor we invite reviewers. Then during defined period of time they accept or decline. This is the definition for reviewer invited.
Under review is the period when reviewer accepted to review. And also after reviews analysis the manuscript can be with the editor for definitive decision. In this phase authors can see 'with the editor'
Thanks Goran Augustin,
however I remain in this status for more than 3m, and I sent emails many time to ED without response.
That is unprofessional. Unfortunately some journals have such long times. I had to wait for 2 years for the publication of one of mine accepted manuscripts. When you go to the journal homepage many journals have the average times for submission to first reply, from acceptance to publication...
My 2 manuscripts already completed 8months but yet to receive first review . I am sending mail to the editor but he is not responding. What should I do ?
Dear Saptarshi
If I were you .. I would send a letter to these journals with a manuscript withdrawal request. The revision times you have reported are simply unacceptable. It could be that the editor cannot locate proper reviewers for your manuscript, but in theory .... a good editor or associate editor informs the authors of what is going on ...
Now for the two papers you have at hand, go in the journal Citation listing of the journals in your field and select journals which are above and below the Impact Factor of the journals you have already submitted to . Start with the higher IF .. if things go bad .. move to the next journal in line.. and continue till you get an acceptance. At the beginning of your career this process is painful .. then the more you publish the easier it gets ...
Many of us have some bad experience with our submissions. I wish there was an association, organization in which we could evaluate journals in respect of speed, quality, and etc.
Depending on your field of expertise you will find discussion groups in INTERNET which share the publishing experience of their members. Unfortunately this paradigm does not covers all fields of science.
Actually ResearchGate might start something similar .. since its members span a wide range of specialties and most people are quite motivated in sharing their experiences.
I agree with Stavros. There should be a list of inappropriate journals (for example at Web of Science) with such problems. After a while researchers will not send their manuscript to these journals. From my point of view there is no other possibility for dealing with this problem. Because the time is passing by.
Seven months is a very long time. It's completely editorial. The editor can shorten the review time by forcing the referees for a certain period of time. I recommend that you recall the manuscript. This may help you.
I repeat that this cannot be solved in simple way. What will editor or review-ers loose if they do not finish the process in requested time period. Will the editor be changed, will the review-ers get fired. The problem is that there are less and less reviewers willing to review especially for less important journals. So you have to have someone, anyone who is willing to review so the journal stays peer reviewed etc.. The payments will settle the problem. For example, review-er gets 10$ for the review. If he accepts and do not fullfill what is requested he looses 20$. I know that this simplification could be misinterpreted but the whole world is working in this way except pure science. It is unsustainable in the long run.
In addition, someone is still having a lot of money. for example, see how 'big' is CEO of Wolters Kluver.
Goran has raised an important point about the fact that there are fewer people wiling to review (or maybe competent to review), despite the efforts of organisations like Publons to increase the value of reviewing by making the process meritorious.
I do review for some major journals but I also started receiving requests from a small group of minor journals based in a developing country. I enthusiastically started reviewing for them in the belief I was helping authors to improve their work who might otherwise not benefit from the opportunity to submit to major journals and the benefits of receiving constructive comment on their work in the process. However, I have now stopped doing those reviews for the following reason.
Having spent some hours, as usual, carefully commenting upon and making suggestions, including identifying errors of fact, formatting, and omission (e.g. one manuscript had at least two images missing from a composite image) I was astonished to find that the manuscripts were subsequently published online with absolutely no changes whatsoever. Why was the journal wasting my time in preparing a comprehensive review if they were prepared to publish what was effectively rubbish in some cases with no scientific or literary value whatsoever?
On that basis you can see why some reviewers may have a jaundiced viewpoint and either not wish to help newcomers and have a slovenly attitude to other works also.
Agree Burgess. Many new-commers from South are interested only in publishing their work and there are many outlets for them but you cannot generalize. However, not only researchers but some editors are also crazy. I recently got comments from the Journal of Arid Environments saying that my paper is potentially an excellent paper but they cannot accept it in present form. They encouraged me to resubmit as a new paper if I was willing to accept all of their constructive comments. I did so and resubmitted the paper and was preety sure that they had no way but to accept my paper because i responded all their comments positively and wholeheartedly. I just received rejection last week stating that the paper is not in their scope so they cannot send it out for review. See if the handling editor changes, the reality also changes. What would you say about that. They also want to publish big names and these academic elites situated in north are least concerned about researchers from South.
The review process often does not depend on the actual time taken by the reviewers to read and assess a manuscript. There are unusual situations in which the reviewers do not respond to invitations and are thus unassigned after a few weeks and new reviewers are invited. It is not rare to invite 5/7 reviewers before finding available reviewers. This means a few rounds of invitations and unassignments. I believe that we should reduce the time allowed to reviewers to accept or decline. In the specific situation, I suggest to write to the Handling Editor (also called Associate Editor in some journals) and to the Editorial Assistant of the journal.
I have been serving as Associate Editor of several journals and now Editor in Chief of another journal. In my experience I have always been fighting to find reviewers and to warmly invite them to submit the reports in due time. Often reviewers do not answer and they have to been unassigned after some time before inviting new reviewers. This causes major delays. What I can say, very broadly speaking, is that when the paper is very well written and has true novelty, the reviewers are happy to read and comment on the paper right away. The struggle is always associated with poorly written papers with minimal content. Thus my suggestion is to spend much time in polishing the paper before submission trying to make it sparkle. This will help a lot.
Of course, on top of all this, we are living in a different editorial world with an exponentially growing number of journals of all kinds and with a flood of review requests coming from all over the place. I believe that this is all good but we have to come up with creative solutions to cope with this challenge.
There are two take home messages from the discussion above :
(1) Overall there is a noted difficulty in finding eligible reviewers , which ,might be solved in a future where Open Access journals "stimulate" the reviewers with a financial compensation. Till that time (if we ever going to see this) one can. (i) suggest a list of potential reviewers; (ii) communicate every 2-months with the editor responsible of the submitted manuscript; (iii) withdraw the paper and submit it to the next entry of the Impact Factor list of the associated area if interest.
(2) As less and less qualified people can do the reviews .. the overall quality of the published papers declines , as it has been hypothesized by the vast explosion of the Open Access Journals. The newbie author does not see this ... and follows the easiest path .. which is not always the best ( at least in terms of h-factor statistics). Possible Solutions: ...(i) ask the community of the area of interest of what to do ... ; (ii) post questions here in the ResearchGate Forums etc.
I don't want to be pessimistic, but scientific authoring has become a business which has nothing to do with correct science .
Most likely your paper is in hands of a guy who is very busy now. You just need to wait but meantime send a push letter to the editor every day. Then, you will get a very short review soon. In my case, even after many refusals, I get to review more than 20 papers a year from many different journals. The editor asks me to finish the review in 2 or 3 weeks - which is very insane. I simply don't have time to do a thorough review in such a short time. This happens because most of journals are owned by companies; for them more publications mean more money and pushes the editor to drive the whole publication process faster. Then, this has forced other society journals to go the same faster. The editors, if they are right, they should refuse to do so but unfortunately none does that. The reviews in these days are usually very short and worthless in most cases; they just accept and reject for not a clear reason. In other words, the reviews focus on making a decision on accept/reject - you don't get anything else valuable or to learn from the comments.
Also, many guys on the editorial board are not capable of handling papers in a proper way; many of them are randomly there on the list. They make stupid mistakes sending the papers to wrong persons. Depending on which guy is handling your paper, the same contents could be a very good paper or a rejected paper which is declared again in a very short review letter.
Publication is now all matter of luck in these days and haunted and ruined by the commercialism.
In summary, don't waist time with reviewers, just pull out and submit it to a better journal.
I have submitted my manuscript in one of the SCI journals about 15 months before. After around 12 months, I received the minor revision. Then after revised submission, another 3 months have passed. Still I did not get any final decision of my manuscript. Is it not an unusual review time? What should I do now?
this is a link that could help an author to decide which journal is fast enough. It should be more detailed with all the journals from one category so we can have an orientation of the review process.
https://scirev.org/statistics/first-round/
This, another link, could also be helpful for the beginning:
https://www.editage.com/insights/how-long-should-i-wait-for-a-response-from-the-journal
This is really aserious issue in research. I live actually the same situation.my paper was sent in January. I have done and sent the revised version in May. Since the paper is Iunder review. I have contacted the editor three weeks a go. He simply replied : "your paper is under review" I don't know what to do now. Any suggestions or advices please ??
The journal Medicine (I am an Academic Editor) modified its editorial manager to shorten the review process by eliminating human factor in the search for reviewers. In other words, when the manuscript is submitted with the keywords, the reviewers are selected on the basis of these keywords automatically and immediately so the whole process is faster. This will not shorten the complete process significantly but it is a step forward.
Unfortunately, I am facing this with every submission almost. These bloody beast donot care about our time, they care about themselves, if paper comes with the rejection then you loose time. they are also saying us that you donot submit paper untill our decesion is finalized that is very crazy and hedious stuff from some bullshit publishing corporation specially hindawi. Never submit a paper in Hindawi journals that are impact factors
My opinion is that there are too many journals and many new are created every day. This leads to the publishing of many unimportant articles. The importance of this wrong way is that many of these should be paid. It is difficult to find the optimal solution because we must ask ourselves several questions:
1) why are we publishing
2) what is the impact of our research in the world
3) what do we get as creators of the final product of our research (not only the money but it is an important issue)
4) what do reviewers get for fast and excellent review
There are many ways to improve this situation and none is ideal. One of the different strategies in publishing could be as in NBA (basketball) in a form of 'drafts'. Authors send a title and an abstract to some SCIENTIFIC POOL and an auction by the editors is made. The details could be polished when the model is created. Maybe a journal of a publisher should pay for the article. Then the authors could get the money or let's say there should be a ratio with part of the money going to authors and part to actual or future projects.
I've got a version of this problem now. More than two months from first submission to any response - and two weeks since the reviewer reports apparently came in (just going by the status description on their site).
It's annoying in the extreme. With Christmas coming up I can well imagine this dragging on until January, with no guarantee of a favourable response. Very unsatisfactory. For the first time, I am beginning to understand the attraction of pre-print servers - which is not something I've seen mentioned in the previous answers.
ArXiv? BioXiv? Might be a good option for authors kept dangling too long by the glacial pace of the review process.
We can talk as much as we want about the slow review process but at the end of the day, the true problem is that academics have to keep up the numbers (number of papers and citations), which is a ridiculous metric to assess researchers, since the metric itself became the goal of research. Without this kind of system, I would not care if a reviewer would take 3, 5 or 7 months to review my paper as long the review is constructive. On the other hand, if reviewers are forced to review quickly (one month?) and considering that the number of review requests are increasing, I don't see how a review can be rigorous and constructive at all (keep in mind that reviewers are not paid to do their job which is time consuming). In fact, what we are all experiencing is a higher number of published papers with a lower quality on average (must be somehow related to energy conservation! :) .. ).
I have to say that the publication after a long wait. Have not been accepted (if:0.9). I submit it again in an other one with (if:2). I have a constructive reviwers comments. After a hard work and majors changes, it is accepted. So for those hwo have similar work. Just keep working and one day someone will appreciate your work and help you to make it better and suitable for publication.
Same case is with me. I had submitted one paper in September 2016 in PAA. But so no response, should i withdraw my paper now ?? Please suggest
If the journal is not offering an explanation and/or a projected timeline for when you will get an answer, then I would retract the submission. I have done this twice before. In one case, when I said they would retract they then sent me a "reject" with all the reviewer comments (I guess they were sitting in a pile). In another case, three months had gone by and they had not yet even managed to assign a responsible editor, and could not tell me when this person would be assigned. I retracted then.
As I said again. The economy is also present in science. If scientists are not satisfied with the submission process they will eventually leave and avoid such journals. Also today it is easy to find the time period until the first response, to complete process of publication, etc for a specific journal. Another point is what scientists want. For example it is almost a year for a publication after acceptance in the most influential surgical journal - Annals of surgery. Some are ready to wait.
well said Aditya Singh
but who got $1000 or more to publish in Plosone and other journals of article processing fees?
It has been 8 months since my manuscript went under review, and I am still waiting. The review is taking almost as long as it took for researching and writing up the manuscript. Was wondering if this is unacceptably long, but it is not unusual as I found out from the answers. I am just hoping they do a detailed review.
Anything can happen to the peer-review process nowadays. Apparently this is the seller's (journal editorial office) market, so there is not much the buyer (authors) can do when the process is painfully delayed. If you believe that the delay is simply due to the facts that some people involved in this process are dealing with a pile of their own deadlines, you can always send a friendly reminder. We have all been there, haven't we? Submitting it to another journal in exchange for a quicker turnaround is a reasonable option when you need to add new publications to your CV within a particular timeframe (e.g., for job applications), etc. https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-one/
Same experience to share, I have been waiting for the status of my manuscript to chage, but nothing happens. It`s been almost 6 months since my submission and the status continues as "Reviewer Invited".
That's the part of research which you have to face. Journals editor and reviewer are not paid. They are doing a nobel service and in certain case you have to wait for longer period of time.
When it comes to publishing a research article, we all have some kinds of experience to share with. In any situations, effective communication is one of the most important aspects of our everyday life. Please do not be shy away to communicate with the administrative assistant of the journal that you'r referring to. She/he will pass the information to the editor and she/he can also update you with the latest information / status of your manuscript. I can confirm that giving too much attention to the submitted article, is some time a waste of time, and it can have negative effect on everyday work.
You can also compose a simple email with positive tone, like the one given below (Hope this helps):
Dear Ms/Mr Admin Assistant:
Manuscript ID: xx
I hope this email finds you well.
I have a great faith in peer reviewing process of Journal xx. However, it’s been over six months I have not received any updates on my manuscript. Would you kindly send updates on the status of my manuscript?
I greatly appreciate it.
Yours Truly,
Author
Unfortunately this usually happens to most of researchers. You have whether to wait or to tell the journal editor that you cancel your submission and choose another journal that is known to have a review process fairly fast (approximately 4 months). I got reply to one of my paper submissions within two weeks and another paper took 4 months to tell me that the paper does not fit to the scope of the journal (That I believe it fits)
http://dtim.essi.upc.edu/jrt/index.php, This website can help you find journal response time, rankings and even you can compare multiple journals together.
I have been waited for 1 year after my initial submission to the Journal. Since December 2018, the status has been changed from "Under review" to "Reviewers assigned" until now. I have inquired the Journal quite frequent, they responded that they have received 1 review report, but not yet for the another. I inquired the Editor 1 month ago, unfortunately there was no reply from him yet. Wish for the positive feedback soon.
I have five words for you: "Respect yourself and withdraw immediately". There are many suitable journals that will definitely value your effort and provide a timely answer.
I have submitted two papers simultaneously in Journal of Electrical Engineering, Romania in Dec. 5, 2016. After a month, I got revision for Part-I and after revised that paper was published in Oct. 2017 but still Part II is "under revision" and if sent a status reminder immediately that will get rejected without any proper / valid answer. I kept quite for the past 2.5 years. Let us see what is happening?
now it has been 15 months after initial submission. I am trying to contact the Editor again (there has no response from him even I inquired oftenly about the situation for 6 months). Wish he will reply in positive, promising way very soon.
@Adil Thanks for your kind sharing My case is different as I have submitted in March 2018 and December 2019 it has changed to "Reviewers Assigned" since then until now.
dear all, I have my paper publication story here .
First version submitted date: 07-10-2017
First Revision: date: 23-01-218 Second Revision : date : 14-03-2018 Third Revision: 01-06-2018
It has been more than a year since i submitted third revision of my paper.
and almost 2 years since i submitted first version of my paper
Moreover, all the suggestions given by reviewer were related to formatting of paper.
Status of my paper on their portal is review : on hold.
They have stopped responding to my reminder mails.
what should i do in this situation?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Invertebrate Zoology
- Entomology