Dear Colleagues
I want to hear opinions regard the issue of long peer-review processes of journals that are considered good (indexed in SCI/Scopus/Medline). Recently I had to withdraw a manuscript from "Public Health", which spent more than 6 months in peer-review, until we decided to withdraw it.
Is there any time limit currently recommended to do this. Was 6 months too much?
Thanks for your comments.
I think maximum 2 months is acceptable, but not more
If rejection happened after 2 month processing, then the journal must list all reviewers comments to fill the gaps, not only to reply as sorry it is rejected.....otherwise the decision must be made earlier so the author has more time to look for other journals
I've good experience with Frontiers journal, my paper was rejected there but the way of processing is so useful: within 1 month and you can do direct interactive review with reviewers ... at the end you gain benefit for publication improvement
Dear Alfonso J. Rodriguez-Morales,
As I know, reviewers have a limit time to make their decision about your manuscript. I think, that 6 months are too long, especially if it was the first revision of your manuscript. Why did you decide to withdraw your paper? In my opinion, you could try to contact with Editor about this situation.
Best regards,
Maxim
Thanks Maxim. The assistant editor just indicated that the journal is delayed in the peer-review processess.
I had silillar experience with journal of community informatics that took over two years to process my paper. I was also patient with them. I have no qualms in publishing with them again. Though time is important, it needs empathy since many journals have their support structure in volunteering mode.
A couple opinions of an editor of the World Association of Medical Editors:
In medical publishing it is generally accepted (and expected by authors) that a first decision will be returned in approximately 30 days. While that is not always the case, 6 months is a lengthy time and in my opinion unacceptably long. That said, I once managed a life science journal where the peer review process consistently took several months and in that field it was deemed OK. The lengthy revisions and requests to re-do research often led to a cycle time of 6-12 months total from submission to acceptance and that Journal had a 5+ Impact Factor. But again, this is an exception and I’m sure most authors in my current field (plastic surgery) would not be pleased because of the fast-paced nature of our discipline. I hope this is helpful.
You might be interested in a case (also originally posted on WAME) which was discussed by COPE a few years ago about slow review. I don't believe there are any formal guidelines on this but the COPE Forum agreed that the author should be contacted within 2–3 months and kept updated on the situation.
see
http://publicationethics.org/case/wame-case
While there is an ideal stand we all can take and propose, the reality is that some journals and their editors are lousy and lazy. As it is becoming a fashion to be called an "editor", incapable people with no time are ruining the editorial process!!
On another question on Research gate I found this site https://scirev.sc/ , that publishes important statistics on journals -- based on their self-disclosure and review of authors.
It would surely be useful if many authors would give feedback on such site, so we could check our journal before submitting. Hope it reaches wider audience.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing