Seven months ago, I submitted a manuscript to a marine mammal journal for review. The results therein have important conservation implications. Therefore, I wish to make them available to the scientific and conservation communities as a matter of urgency. I have been in touch with the relevant editor on several occasions, but they keep telling me that there have been delays in the process. I am considering sending the editor a request to cancel the review process so that I can resubmit elsewhere, however I do not know the implications of this move. I would appreciate your advice on what / what not to do in this situation.
Hi Conor,
Its not a 'unique' position that you find yourself in. There are a few issues to consider as to whether to persevere or not; i.e. is it a 'target' journal, does it have a good IF-factor etc? If you cancel - you 'start again'. After this amount of time - i would, personally, stick with it - even if it is just to get the benefit of reviewer feedback. Editors are human and, if you stick at it, you might 'shame' them into doing the right thing. If they persistently come up with 'lame excuses' though - you will eventually have to move on. If that is the case, it could be an idea to let them know that you are not happy and that you would discourage others from submitting. Just don't 'shoot yourself in the foot'
Thanks for your answer Dean. It is a low impact journal (I was trying to reduce the risk of delay by going straight to a low impact journal). I guess I will hold off for another month or so...
Hello Conor,
I usually face similar problems, particularly when submitting to History journals. At this moment, I have a manuscript submited (and coming back and forward with distinct comments and request for revision) for almost two years now. But it is a good journal for my area, it has good IF, and I feel that I don't want to start all over again, so I just keep on waiting...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles