I have an impression that the average time of publishing our work is due to very slow, painful and sometimes unfair reviewing, on average three years. Are we resding the research from the past? Already obsolete?
it depends on publisher and journal and reviewers response
I'm going to guess much depends on the subject area. When I published in high quality refereed journals, I expected about six months if there were no revisions. Up to a year if there were. So nothing was stale.
As for assessments being unfair, I consider that a ŕed herring. Author's cannot be he judge of references. That's a job for editors. Bad editor, bad journal.
Christopher NOCK
It is good to wait for appropriate reviews from high quality journals even if the waiting time is unduly long. But it is sometimes not too helpful, especially when after waiting for several months and even close to a year you are told the Journal cannot consider your article for publication without any tangible reason.
I believe we as researchers all have a role to play in enhancing the speed of flow of publications since we are usually the very ones reviewing each others manuscript. Thus, we must work timely to produce good results even as we expect our works to be delivered timely. Working timely does not mean compromising quality in this regard.
If we want good publication we will have to wait but it should not be more than 2-3 years. The waiting period also varies on our field of work
I do agree that the waiting period should not be more than 2-3 months, but we have to wait and be in queue if the journal deserves so.
Most of the SCI journals having impact factor are taking 6-8 months minimum to publish a quality work some times more than a year, these time should be reduced to 2-3 months for a fast and prograssive research, which all depends on the reviewers and the subject editor.
I find it difficult if it is a multidisciplinary research. This is my experience. Thank you sll for your helpful answers
I think from all factors discussed above, your luck is also a very prominent parameter.
The problem with most of the ISI journals, you wait even for about a year, and then, your article get rejected. I feel, in case of rejection, the researcher should not,
at least, waste that much of time.
Three to four months before an answer on whether a manuscript is deserving of peer review is not unrealistic. The peer review process takes time. It is acceptable to have at least 12 months between draft to publication, if not longer.
Thank you all for your comments. Sometimes I just got the remarks from reviewers revealing that they are not experts on the topic, and the communication about that is very problematic. I think that it would be helpful for the reviewing process to become transparent. What do you think?
Well, to be honest, most reviewers aren't truly expert in "your" subject area. If they spot a flaw in the science that's good. But if they're plain wrong, the editor should pick that up if you report the errors of the referees.
NOCK
Strongly agreed
journal editor must be unbiased and publish articles on merit not on personal liking disliking
According to
my experience there are a lits of biase. From my immediate circle there is almost no one who published something the whole last year..except the conferences. I think tis system will be disrupted soon dice it is infair and unsustainable.
Publishing in the conference proceedings is much much quicker (up to 4-6 months after submitting a paper). Publishing a standard research journal article takes up to a year... Unfortunately, that's true...
It depends on the journal, but for those that publishes quarterly its usually 2-3 months, for those that publishes twice a year its usually 3-5 months and for those that publishes once years its usually 5-10 months.
Yes it depends on the type of journal as well as its reviewers. But generally takes longer to publish in a journal as compared to conferences
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing