I submitted an article to a journal last year and the editor acknowledged the receipt of my manuscript.
Few months later, I asked about the status of my submission. He replied:
" this is to inform you that I have included your paper in the forthcoming batch of the SKASE JTI intended for the peer-reviewing process.
I will inform you in due time"
Months later, I again asked for updates,
The editor replied:
"
now I wish to be more precise in my estimate as to the publication of the next issue.
It is to be reasonably anticipated that the reviewers would have some comments which have to be incorporated in the relevant papers (the reviewers are allowed 2 months to pass their reviews) and after this is made then they again look if the modifications are correct, if not, the author will receive the paper back ...... and the whole process usually takes a few months.
What is (almost) certain is that the next issue will be published this year.
My estimate would be September - October, but it may come earlier - depending on the number and quality of the papers.
Any estimate is the most difficult part of this editorial mission.
Thank you for understanding my position.
My best regard"
Then:
"
I am planning to send the papers out to the reviewers in early March.
From the date they confirm the acceptance of a paper for review, the two-month period starts to lapse, but even is a reviewer extends it, I can only courteously beg them to submit it .... the work of all of us i "academic charity".
So sending a paper to them does not mean the start of the above 2-month period.
But I have to understand that all of them (us) are extremely busy with their (our) other chores.
Hope this clarifies the issue even better.
Best regards."
I have not heard back from him since then. I checked the journal's website and it seems that they have recently published a new issue.
WE SHOULD STOP THIS!!!!!
Continue to serve him reminders. If there is no fruitful response, you can proceed to find another suitable journal
Long review cycles have become a norm in academia. Sometimes, I have to wait for a year to hear back, esp. from top journals. Much has been already said and discussed about this problem, but not much can be actually done - all editorial work (including the AEs) is done by an army of volunteers, and we all have to put the editorial responsibilities in the middle (or even at the bottom) of the to-do list.
My advice - patiently wait and don't bug the editor. If you start annoying them and asking for a quick decision, you will get one - a desk reject. and don't blame them for that. Then go argue... Another option is to withdraw the paper, this is possible to do if it has not been sent to the reviewers yet. Than's why most researchers have multiple pipelines, this somewhat alleviates (but does not solve) the problem. If you have 5-7 papers in progress, some are under review, some are being revised, etc. So work on multiple projects.
Alexander Serenko,
I agree! I will just wait and change my strategy in the future.
Mohammed Al-Batineh glad to hear that. Again, look at the process from the perspective of the AEs and EICs. All the power rests with them - speaking from experience on both sides. If they like the paper but the reviewers do not, they can always turn a reject to a reject-and-resubmit which will involve a lot of work (e.g., new data collection) but may eventually lead to a publication. I also had an opposite experience - all reviewers said 'accept' but the AE decided to reject it nevertheless, and I have seen similar situations as a reviewer as well. Welcome to the world of academia!
Remind them again. You should finally get a response soon.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor