Hello, one of the main problems is that when the status is "under review" it means that the reviewers are invited but for the editors, this is very complicated to find reviewers. A lot of the selected reviewers never response and the editor needs to find new candidates. Also, some reviewers accept the invitation but never send the comments. Some systems as publons permit to see who is a good candidate for reviews but it doesn´t guarantee a response on time.

According to the authors, My authors insisted to cite the first one to reach these results from respective sources and according to the publisher, increase or decreasd the time of the revision of the new manuscript.

the blacklist of scientific journals is a good idea, your topic should suggest to Ethics related organizations like COPE (https://publicationethics.org/) or ICMJE.

I don't know if author rights are concerned by journals.

Finding good reviewers is not easy. They cannot be blacklisted for voluntary service.

However, I agree with you that they should try to finish the assigned work within the stipulated period of time. Otherwise they should not agree to review.

Subir Bandyopadhyay : But we know that if there is no time for reviewing the manuscript they should not accept arbitration, even if arbitration is a voluntary service. Aren't the articles of the reviewers also reviewed? They are also keen to have the reviewing process swift. They also benefit from this voluntary service. They have to be responsible. There is a deadline and if they accept an invitation they have to review the manuscript before than deadline.

@Taymaz R.Farshi

I agree with you. If the reviewers accept to review, they should do so timely

It happens in most of cases

Reviewers should follow the specific guidelines and fundamental ethics of reviewing from the moment they accept to review an article on behalf of the journal. It should never be related to the fact whether (s)he is offering his/her service voluntarily or being paid/rewarded in any form. This will, then, lead to submission of a review in time. Otherwise, the whole system will suffer including the author.

Not just time

There are many things researchers are in a difficult situation

Authors submit their manuscripts to the journal, not to reviewers.

the journals should determine the time of the decision, if voluntarily reviewer can't read manuscripts on time, the journal should pay to reviewers.

the authors are dole manuscripts to journals.

This is an unusual case. Most journals complete the reviewing process within a reasonable period.

However, in case of any inordinate delay, I would prefer to withdraw my manuscript and resubmit the same to some other journal.

The problem is that sometimes the same editorial processes of magazines are slow. I know cases in which one sends the manuscript, in the magazine they change the status to "Under review" but do not send it to the blind peers. It stays in the initial processes. In other cases, it is also due to the queue for review. They are sending in order of arrival and there are many, this makes the system say that it is under review but it is not really.

This is a very serious problem. I also have send my research papers in different journals. If you want to quit your paper from that journal they do not response the mail. I have send my one research paper in Polish Botanical journal and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India about two years ago, but i do not get any information related to that paper.

If the submission system is modern enough, and the publisher has a conscience, then you should be able to log in to withdraw your manuscript. You should also - within a few days - receive a message that your manuscript is no longer in the system.

By the way - there typically is NO deadline regarding the time it may take; yes, there is often a phrase like "we hope you can perform your reviewing duties within x Months", but those are not fixed times, and the reviewer hasn't signed a contract to ever be done. (At least they cannot sue the reviewer for being late.) That's just how it is.

But if you send a manuscript to more than one journal, you may be in trouble: what would happen if both journals accept the manuscript??

I would withdraw the manuscript and try somewhere else.

Michael Patriksson: I have reviewed some manuscript and there was a deadline for some of them. As you know it depends on the journal or editor.

Hello, one of the main problems is that when the status is "under review" it means that the reviewers are invited but for the editors, this is very complicated to find reviewers. A lot of the selected reviewers never response and the editor needs to find new candidates. Also, some reviewers accept the invitation but never send the comments. Some systems as publons permit to see who is a good candidate for reviews but it doesn´t guarantee a response on time.

I do not want to say that reviewers are always right because delivering judgments about others' works is very complicated. We should remember that reviewers are busy academicians who often volunteer to review papers without being paid. As such, abstaining from sending comments or reviewing is often the consequences of the conditions surrounding reviewers.

Reza Biria They have to be responsible. If they accept an invitation they have to review the manuscript swift.

Contact the editor of the journal.

I have a similar situation presently. I think this happen to journals with no publication fee, where editor has limited available requests due to the nature of the manuscript. Imagine a manuscript from January till date and the second review decided not to respond to emails from editor in charge.

That makes research money oriented

Lo recomendable es que desde un comienzo el proceso editorial comparta las reglas en temas de tiempo y entregables para que no se presenten inconformidades con los autores.

i do agree with Reza Biria

It is individual behaviour. The journal give deadline for revision. May be some reviewers included in other activities.

Actually it is the fashion of so called prestjious reviewrs .

In fact there typically is no strict deadline for reviews, but as an editor I have had to terminate a few ongoing reviews when the reviewer did not respond to repeated questions whether the review could be expected to arrive soon.

Usually, the terms for reviewers are from 2 weeks to 3 months. Unfortunately, in practice, not everyone adheres to these deadlines, as all materials subject to expert review are subject to double "blind" review. The editor-in-chief selects reviewers from among independent guest reviewers, who usually have to be recognized experts in the subject matter of the materials under review. The selection of these reviewers and the evaluation of the materials may exceed these deadlines. Hopefully, the journal is not in a hurry to reject your material, so you should wait patiently.

And how do they react, Violeta?

Long time for the status “under review” means that the reviewers did not response. There are two main reasons: they were busy and forget the paper; they did not really understand and more time to study. In both case, you should send an email to editor. Editor will remind them.