On average, it usually takes 10-20 minutes to read through and conceptualize the work presented in various manuscripts by authors. Any journal worth any grain of salt and indexed in journal whitelists such as the directory of open access journals (DOAJ) have a scope and therefore reviewers on hand to review manuscripts. Why then do journals, particularly the top journals take forever to review manuscripts submitted on their submission systems. Could it be that the intention is to create a facade that their process is stringent and rigorous?
Thank you @temitayo and @ Edwin for your sentiments.I agree that some of the reviewers are very busy people and the peer review process is a multistage, multifactorial process. However, my question is limited to the average time it takes to read through a manuscript and understand what the authors are trying to communicate. In all honesty, a reviewer who is selected to review a paper and consents to do so should be professional in creating time to do the same, much in the same way you create time to eat, sleep and do other important things, because let's face it, the reviewers also get to benefit in someways that may not always be monetary. A quick check on Researchgate and you will see how this platform is awash with researchers posting their peer review certificates, which I opine inevitably ends up building their reputation and often trickles down to promotions, facilitates sourcing for grants etc.
Simply put, my question is limited to the initial phase of peer review,i.e the period between author submission and feedback/first decision from the journal.
NB: I am specific on journals which actually peer review author work and not predatory journals (which is why I made mention of DOAJ which in my opinion is the most comprehensive journal whitelist available at the moment).
@Derek Pyne....Thanks for your comment. However, my post has not insinuated that peer review should take 10-20 minutes. Also, contrary to what you are implying, papers in my discipline are not simplistic by any stretch of the imagination. What I have asked is very clear, why should peer review take more than three months when one can read through a manuscript in 20 minutes or so to get to have a general sense of what needs to be altered or improved upon. Peer review begins by reviewers reading through the manuscript to get the gist of what the authors are attempting to report. Then, after this preliminary check, the reviewer begins critical appraisal of each individual section to pick out flaws (if any) in the abstract, background, objectives, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion. Then he/she compiles his/her report and submits the comments to the editor to whom the manuscript was assigned. The editor then relays the feedback to the authors and this may be a rejection or the authors are given room to respond to the comments raised by the reviewers. What can journals do to shorten the time frame involved without compromising the quality of the process?
Dear Mitchel Otieno Okumu
Usually, scientific journals give reviewers specific time to evaluate the search. Often a week or three weeks. But some journals take months to replay why I cant understand. I reviewer in some journals one of them give me one week only form my decision it take months about 6 weeks from submission manuscript.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Indexes