Me: So how long has it been since you first submitted your paper to XXX?
Resident Genius Postdoc: Next week it'll be eight months.
Me: Wow, that's almost like pregnancy.
Resident Genius Postdoc: At least there's an end to pregnancy.
Me: Yeah, I guess you can always get a c-section.
Question: why don't journals have some policy about how long they can hold a manuscript that is up for review? Journals should promise to review any submitted manuscript within a certain number of days. If the review process (including the first and second review periods, but excluding the time it took the authors to resubmit the paper) exceeds say 3 moths, then the journal should publish the manuscript. Just a thought.
- Log in to post comments
Pretty bad. Though I know of even older cases for example the author who sent his manuscript a Birthday card care of the journal where it languished.
After 8 months your colleague is probably on a hiding to nothing. Withdraw the paper and submit to a journal that gives better service.
I like the idea of a cut-off, but with a slight change. The main reason papers take a long time in review is when finding referees is difficult. Normally this is because no-one has an interest in reading the paper, often because it is bad or boring. So why not:
That would leave a cleaner literature.
Quit whining, whippersnappers.
I got 2,500 publications, presentations, and broadcasts to my credit by not worrying about slowpoke editors and referees.
Just start writing something new.
I've had a complete book manuscript sit on an editor's desk for 2 years. By email, he then admitted that he didn't know what he'd done with it, having moved offices, thought he'd sent it back to me (he had not). So I asked if he wanted another copy. Yes. I sent it. A year and a half went by. By email, he then admitted AGAIN that he didn't know what he'd done with this second copy, thought he'd sent it back to me (he had not). I complained to a writers group I'm active in, harsh words wernt back and forth, he declared he never wanted to deal with me again editorially or socially. A few months later, he won a major editorial award, and headed the largest book line of its kind in the world. So what.
I've had things vanish into the editorial desk space of more conferences and journals than you like to admit exist.
Just keep writing.
It's a stochastic process. Rejectionb means nothing, other than: send it out again within 24 hours to the next market on your list.
lather, rinse, repeat.
You might know some of my co-authors, coeditors, and co-broadcasters: Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, Richard Feynman.
Keep writing. Ask the next question.
JVP,
From your comment I'm guessing that you are not in the biological sciences. I wish the process were as simple as you make it out to be. To be able to collect data for a good publication takes time. And the journal that the manuscript appears in can make or break a young scientist's career. And yes a single publication can do that. In addition, fields such as cell biology and microbiology (relevant for my labmate's work) is VERY competitive. Not only is the publication of her manuscript delayed, but as the editor has yet to decide whether or not to publish her work the future of the manuscript is in doubt. Meanwhile her reviewers know her results and have communicated her findings to many other labs within her field including many potential competitors. My labmate found out about this at a recent conference.
The specific journal that my labmate has been dealing with has been very bad as of late. Just scanning their recent issues, most papers took well over 6 months from the "date of submission" to the "date of acceptance". Now of course it could be that the journal reviewed the manuscript quickly and the authors just took forever to revise the work, perform new experiments and resubmit the paper, but this is not the case for my labmate. She performed all the extra experiments that they asked for and turned in the revised manuscript within a couple of months. That means that the journal has been holding on to the paper for more then 6 months. That is unacceptable within the world of science publication.
CS,
The problem with my labmate's manuscript is not that the journal failed to find reviewers, but that one reviewer has been causing problems and that the monitoring editor was not making any firm decisions. The editor then left the journal and his/her replacement has sent everything back to this particular reviewer. This experience is one of the worst that I've heard. And others who have sent manuscripts to this journal (recently) have gone through similar experiences.
Re: your modification.
If a manuscript is boring or is of no interest, then a top-tiered journal should reject it outright and not sit on its thumbs for n months. If they are delinquent on their part then they owe it to the scientist to correct their ineptitude. Likewise if the journal tells the researchers "you have x months to resubmit a revised manuscript" then the onus is on the researcher to fulfill his part of the deal, or else suffer the consequences.
Alex,
We are on the same page. Submission of a manuscript to a journal is an informal contract between author and editor; both parties have obligations. Being on the editors' side of the fence for a decade or so I've seen (and been involved in) nightmares caused by editorial mistakes, author misbehaviour, random acts of refereeing, but most of all good old fashioned bad luck.
At the end of the day Authors individually and collectively have the ultimate sanction. You don't have to submit papers to journals that give you poor service. You don't have to submit papers to journals whose policies you disagree with. Increasingly you won't have to submit papers to journals at all as alternative mechanisms to disseminate your work become established.
Please cut the editors of journals some slack, unless you have served in that role it is difficult to appreciate the pain and suffering involved. But there is an 'elective c-section' available: pull the paper, post it on a preprint server, and submit it somewhere else.
.... perhaps what we need is a "WHICH Journal" to judge journals on service rather than Impact Factor. It could be developed alongside a metric for papers which isn't the Impact Factor of the journal in which they appear.
(You just knew I'd have to blame Impact Factors at some point!)
This again comes down to how much of a difference the editor makes to a manuscript. Some editors step up and do the job they are supposed to do.....which includes dealing with the reviewers, watching out for unreasonable or unprofessional reviews, weed out troublesome reviewers, and getting it all done in a reasonable amount of time. Here, the editor has clearly failed in that job, and your labmate has to suffer.
I think a major part of our troubles with publishing comes down to good, competent editors, and their ability to process papers efficiently.
Sorry Chris, you set off the spam filters.
The problem of the impact factor is a big one. Unfortunately it dictates how we, young scientists, behave. Not out of our own choice, but because of funding agencies and search committees. Maybe things will change, but I think it'll take some time.