What do you think of 7-day reviews? It is fine. In my opinion, the deadline for an assigned review should not exceed two weeks. If a reviewer is unable to review a manuscript by the deadline, they should inform the journal/conference etc. promptly.

I think, it is enough, at least not should more than 2 weeks.

It is a very interesting question. From my point of view 7-day reviews is enough time.

Best wishes,

Litart

What do you think of 7-day reviews? It is fine. In my opinion, the deadline for an assigned review should not exceed two weeks. If a reviewer is unable to review a manuscript by the deadline, they should inform the journal/conference etc. promptly.

I feel its more than enough as we are in electronix era, things can be sorted quickly nowadays.

I agree with a short time period, not necessarily 7 days, but two weeks probably is a fair time.

Otherwise researches have the motivation to submit in parallel their work...

Journal is for periodical liking & as per your interest,knowledge we wish to subscribe & read the magazine as per liking .

This is my personal opinion

Dear Rohit Manilal Parikh , Demetris Christopoulos , Emre Pakdemirli , Aristidis Matsoukis , Ildefonso Gustavo Díaz Sandoval , Fares F. Fares

Thank you all for making this discussion so interesting and informative.

Best regards,

Yu-Da

I agree with the rest of the comments.

7 days is good enough for a manuscript review, I think. However an average of 2-3 weeks is more reasonable.

If time management is well and evaluation is meticulous, 7-day reviews are sufficient.

Editorial boards as Peer Reviewers are inviting the best experts in corresponding fields. To be the best, the latter must be actively engaged in their own scientific work. Therefore, the proposal to shorten the review period to 7 days - to me personally (and I have many years of experience in reviewing articles in several international journals) - seems extremely short. In my opinion the most reasonable is the period of 1 month.

If the ms is well written the review process may take less time.

But other duties of the reviewer affect the review period.

Interesting

Honestly i thing seven days is okay if the reviewer does not have a lot of tasks at hand.

as a reviewer i had done .but almost the journal they just need the confirmation that you can review the paper by one week.and of course they will give you a time to complete it .

Not enough, i think it is an indication for a bad impact journal

But there is another question about journals that take months for manuscript evaluation

Seems OK, if done appropriately , for example with a clear checklist .

It Is not only a matter of time, but the type of article and research work as well as the level of language and structure of the article and the theoretical and practical clarity, in addition the culture and knowledge of the reviewer and his or her scientific back ground which is related to the reviewed works

Interesting!

It is good

It depends on the quality of paper and the journal review guidelines .

It is actual real time just add waiting list of paper time then it becomes any thing from 1 month to 1 year

Dear Mahavir Balmukund Varma , Sajda Taha Mahmood , Anita Singh , Nafees Mohammad , Nirmala S.V.S.G

Thank you colleagues, thank you for sharing your insights and thoughts.

You make this discussion so interesting and informative.

Best regards,

Yu-Da

1 week is not good enough, 2 weeks are sufficient.

7 days is too small. Most reviewers are also conducting their own research so it should take at least a month for thorough expert review. However, if the reviewer is a retired scientist, then 7 days or less may be possible

not enough. Its very short time to review.

Dear Muhammad Abdullah Avais , Eddie-Williams Owiredu , Mauro Luisetto

Thank you for sharing your insights and thoughts.

At present, most people think seven days is enough.

Best regards,

Yu-Da

It is not too short. I spend less than 3 days on review whenever my expertise is required in order not to forget. That author and editor may be luck if they have 3 reviewers like me with maybe two yes.

I find it tooooo short !! I do it in 7 days , but would like at least 2 weeks for reading in patience .

Dear Aparna Sathya Murthy , Segun Michael Abegunde ,

Thank you for sharing your insights and thoughts.

It seems that between 7 days and 14 days is the best.

Best regards,

Yu-Da

I think 7 days is adequate for a review. However due to the heavy workloads that deadline maybe impractical. Since reviewers have to juggle many tasks at the same time. A period of 2 weeks should be sufficient.

Dear @Yu-Da Lin , once again 7 days is enough time for me , if you don't have any other reviewing commitments. If you are very busy than this time frame can be doubled to 2 weeks.

I agree that if the required criteria is met, 7 days could be adequate.

Actually, the faster reply to the editor will give better experience for the researchers, so they can get faster feedback.

A faster publishing process will yield more scientific research sharing.

Dear Mohamad-Hani Temsah , Emre Pakdemirli , د. علي عبود مالك

Thank you for your reply. At present, there is a common understanding that seven days is sufficient in principle, but two weeks is the best time to review when multiple reviews are in progress or busy.

Best regards,

Yu-Da

أعتقد إن ٧ أيام كافيا.

14 days time is enough to review an article. Due to more time slot (normally one to six months), editor and reviewers did not remember about the assigned task of review. After journal reminder, they review it within 3 to 4 days which result in delay of authors time and some times author idea not remain novel due to delay in publishing.

The review time depends on the length the manuscript, schedule of the reviewer, etc. But 7 days is still too short for me to do a constructive review.

I look at it two ways, as the reviewee, I want the review back fast, I think that a week is reasonable, but as the reviewer, I need 2 weeks because there may not be enough time to do the review and my other responsibilities. If it will take more than 2 weeks, then I should say that I am not able to be a reviewer at this time.

brigid

A month for reviewing will be enough in my opinion... points with every single detail should be under study very carefully before giving the feedback in such an important decision

a bit hasty to do a proper evaluation. A month should be the maximum.

I think it depends upon the paper to be reviewed , so I agree with Dr Srdjan

It depends on multiple factors.....But mostly on the following:

*Subject of the manuscript

*Volume of the content

*Research, review or mini review....Ie type of manuscript

*Rules, ethics and scope of the particular journal

*Sometimes, not in all cases, the relative ratio of text, data, graphs, figures and references also.

So it should not be restricted with the bindings and compulsions of time, in no situation, for maintaing the quality of the paper and journal as well as to reduce the pressure from the reviewer.

It depends on:

• the quality of submitted manuscript and size of provided data;
• reviewers' availability.
• policy and rigour of target journal.

For peer review it's not sufficient.

I think it is not enough to review a paper properly in one week. It usually takes longer time

I think a week for a paper that don't exceed 15 pages is Ok. But to unlock availibities, the key solution is retribution, even if minimal, subject to author's opinion, but something.

I think that it is enough , two weeks to review paper in the same topic..

Dear Seif El Islam Lebouachera , Fred Romano , Meaad Kadhum Hassan , Meghit Boumediene Khaled , Amit Baran Sharangi , Lamia Al-Naama , Ahmadi Murjani

Thank you so much colleagues for an amazing collection of opinions and thoughts. Many factors of investigation have been discussed for making this discussion so interesting and informative.

Best regards,

Yu-Da

2-3 weeks are enough

Éso depende del Manuscrito y de su contenido. depende del revisor que quera o no ser considerado con el autor del manuscrito. a veces rechazamos un buen Manuscrito porque nos cae mal o no conocemos al que confeccionó el Manuscrito!!!...Todos los manuscritos no son iguales ni llevan un tiempo fijo para revisarlos, cometemos errores dañando a alguien que paso noches y madrugadas luchando por su trabajo. Seamos analíticos, un manuscrito no es igual al otro y por lo tanto todo tiene que ser dialéctico y muy pensado, siempre no hacer daño!!. Respetuosamente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario!

It is a restrict deadline which is unfair for reviewers are volunteering.

Dear Rodolfo Vega Candelario , Wajid Zaman , Bruce Robin Nyamweha ,

Thank you very much.

Rodolfo Vega Candelario and Bruce Robin Nyamweha provide the interesting insights and thoughts. Always do no Harm! Unfair for reviewers are volunteering.

Best regards,

Yu-Da

One week is not enough time for rigor review. In my opinion, 2-3 weeks is enough.

It depends on the reviewer. If the reviewer have enough free time and give a couple of hours to review the manuscript I think two days is also enough.

Dear Saraj Bahadur , Khalid Hosny ,

Thank you for sharing your insights and thoughts.

Best regards,

Yu-Da

Es absurdo entre profesionales. Saben que la mayoría de los revisores en muchos países no son vagos dedicados totalmente a revisión. Hay docencia, hay entrega a la asistencia los paciente, que es la razón de ser, por eso defiendo la medicina basada en la evidencia!!!..No todos tenemos el mismo tiempo colegas para dedicar a esas revisiones que sin son justas deben llevar más o menos tiempos según manuscrito y la intencionabilidad del revisor. Respetuosamente. Rodolfo Vega candelario

I think that it is enough .

Dear Rodolfo Vega Candelario

I think that I understood some of your message. There are people who review articles and do not give the article or research their full attention, but I think that there are also reviewers who are super dedicated. The hope is that, the two balance out.

brigid

"Empirical grounding; conceptual modeling; explanatory logic; implications and applications; quality of communication"...It's extremely responsible work. To do it a reviewer must analyze a lot of resources. I think, 2 -3 weeks

Dear Irina Mikhailovna Pechonkina , Brigid Conroy , Khansaa Azeez Obayes Al-Husseini , Rodolfo Vega Candelario ,

Thank you for participating in this discussion and making it so valuable.

Best regards,

Yu-Da

I think one week is enough to review a paper. There are many journals that give the reviewer only one week to review their manuscripts, such as IEEE Access, Information, and Entropy.

Yo veo imposible para un revisor que cumpla con sus actividades científicas, estudios, preparación e impartir docencia y sobre todo la asistencia a sus enfermos y sus respetabilidades familiares hacer una buena revisión y sobre todo justa de un artículo que tantas y tantas noches y madrugadas tiene que ocupar el autor. Ahora si es por hacer chapucearías, se puede realizar en par de horas pero no cumple objetivo científico optimo o responsable revisión en 7 días es absurdo para un buen revisor que sea justo y responsable!!! ...Depende también del artículo, el nivel estadístico, etc para que dure más de 15 días. Ahora hablan e revistas donde dan 7 días ( 1 semana) pero esos revisores señores, no hacen nada más que revisar en pares y punto. No tienen otra actividad de responsabilidad. Y se incumple el principio de Medicina basado en la Evidencia!!!... En mí país y muchos otros se tienen que cumplir muchos deberes asistenciales, científicos, familiares, etc. para plantear semejante cosa de solamente 7 días, es algo abusivo y absurdo. Respetuosamente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario

En 7 días es imposible, si se va a hacer correctamente!!!

Dear Rodolfo Vega Candelario ,

Thank you for participating in this discussion and making it so valuable. Your reply is very important and enlightening.

Dear Mohammed Elmogy ,

Thank you for sharing your insights and thoughts.

Es un privilegio para mi participar en este prestigioso espacio, qué es para progreso y bienestar científico. Gracias. Cordialmente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario.

As I see RG is the best place for philosophy-like questions, like current one.

But if you ask a technical question, then you will never find an answer!

If somebody is familiar with Archetypal Analysis, then he/she is welcome here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_most_efficient_way_for_computing_Archetypal_Analysis

Thank you

Okey. Todo perfecto, Buen provecho a todos hermanos. Respetuosamente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario.

Es una discusión de colegas muy provechosa. les doy gracias y felicitaciones.Fué genial, este debate desbordado de conocimientos y realidades. Cordialmente y con mucho respeto a todos. Un abrazo sincero!!!

I think that is not a serious review. 2 -3 weeks is more suitable.

Dear Carlos Alberto Matos Trindade , Rodolfo Vega Candelario , Demetris Christopoulos ,

Thank you all for making this discussion so interesting and informative.

Assuming a conscientious, competent, constructive and detailed review, the time necessary depends of the availability of the reviewer when he receives the invitation, from the expertise of the reviewer in the scientific area of the manuscript, and of the completeness, quality of the presentation and scientific rigour of the version that was submitted to the Journal. With that regard, sometimes one/two weeks or even less may be more than enough, while other times two months and a half or even more may be too little. For a matter of respect and sympathy with their peers, Reviewer should inform promptly the Editor about his availability to perform the review in the time required, in order to not delay the revision procedure and the editorial decision.

I hope that my constructive answer has been pedagogic.

estoy absolutamente de acuerdo con usted estimado dr. Antonio Manuel Abreu Freire Diogo. Así debe ser. Gracias, Respetuosamente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario

Dear Rodolfo Vega Candelario , António Manuel Abreu Freire Diogo , Srdjan Atanasijevic ,

Thank you for your careful and helpful insights and thoughts.

7-day reviews in the Journal confirms “the quality” of this journal.

Dear Romeo Meštrović , د. علي عبود مالك

Thank you for sharing your insights and thoughts.

Gracias por todos conocimientos prácticos y enseñanzas. Cordialmente. Rodolfo Vega candelario.

A very interesting question. I think if one is able to review an article, it means she/he is an expertise in that field. As an expertise, it is actually possible to review a manuscript in less than 7 days if you give it full time attention. In fact, the first three days, you can have an idea of whether to accept or reject a manuscript on upon revise or not. I can only agree that 7 days is not sufficient if the manuscript is written in a language the reviewer is not familiar with or English is a second language because one will need more time to 'digest' the materials from the manuscript. The 7 days may also not be enough if one is very busy. In my own opinion, one should accept to review a paper or manuscript if she/he can fix time for it. Why accept to review a manuscript when one actually knows the time is not sufficient? Finally, most journals will ask one whether she/he would like to extend the days to more than 7 given a sound reason. All in all, it is advisable not to accept to review if one thinks the review time is not enough to make critical judgement and give detailed constructive comments. I think there will be some experts out there who will be able to review in that time since they can think and provide constructive comments or insights in the shortest possible time without losing quality. As the world is changing, the duration taken to review a manuscript is expected to become shorter and shorter in order to make information readily available for researchers while maintaining a high quality. All the best.

What is/are exactly the journal(s) that is intended with this question? Can you clarify? I am not aware of a week deadline, for performing manuscript revisions. I was never invited to revise a paper that demanded a deadline shorter than two weeks.

Felicitaciones a todos por la cordialidad y dar su opinión y repuestas sinceras.

This situation does not exist with known and high impact journals

Dear Khaled Muftah Elsherif , Rodolfo Vega Candelario , António Manuel Abreu Freire Diogo , Cosmas Wacal ,

Thank you for sharing your insights and thoughts.

It is true that there is still no rapid review period in high impact journals, but in recent years, more and more journals claim to be able to submit articles to complete publication within three to four weeks, which is obviously a trend.

Summarizing, at least to my knowledge, and in my Scientific Area:

Journals, particularly ISI, with one week deadline for revision does not seem to exist.

Three /four weeks for complete revision and journal production is currently possible, but, particularly in ISI Efficient Journals and with High Impact Factor, only for papers with scientific quality very high, or well above average.

António Manuel Abreu Freire Diogo . Estimado Colega, sus respuestas son precisas concisas y llevan a un resultado práctico y de medicina basada en evidencia. Ha tenido intervenciones muy valederas e importantes para mí. Gracias. cordialmente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario.

Reitero que ésto hay que verlo integralmente. Estoy seguro que éso de 7 días exacto no es dialéctico ni justo, es estático y puede llevar a una pésima revisión y a una injusticia tremenda con el autor. Tengo experiencias en estás injusticias por pésimas revisiones!!!. Respetuosamente. Rodolfo vega Candelario.

Dear colleagues,

I thank António Manuel Abreu Freire Diogo for reminding me. This discussion may mislead RG partners into thinking that 7 days of review is reasonable in all areas.

I have revised the title of the discussion to point only to journals in areas I know at present. Many areas do require longer validation of the thesis's arguments, which are not included in the discussion.

This discussion is not to encourage RG partners to review manuscripts within 7 days, but to explore whether you think this review is sufficient?

Best regards,

Yu-Da