next »

[science_expat]

I'm also not certain what I will do the next time I'm asked to review for Elsevier but I suspect that I will decline.

God clearly has a sense of humor. Today I was asked to review for an Elsevier journal. After much dithering I finally agreed because i) the manuscript looks interesting and ii) it looks really easy to review.

However, I'm not sure that I made the right decision.

[gringo_gus]

Coincidentally there is also a campaign  against elsevier journals because of an arms trade connection,

see

http://www.idiolect.org.uk/elsevier/petition.php

[banana]

Ugh.  None of this bodes well for the article I currently have under review with an Elsevier journal (field: Psychology).  The website claims they aim for a 90-day turn-around for initial decision.  Mine's at 145 days and counting...

In response to OP: My experiences in psychology have ranged from 3 months to 18 months for initial decision.  The latter involved a change in editor.

[wikiprofessor]

Thanks for your detailed comments, everyone. The turn-around time for the physical sciences seems to be the best (as per science expat’s post). Some people would argue that the enforcement of the kind of deadlines science expat mentions might lead to:

1. Either no one wanting to referee (especially senior scholars), causing a break-down of the peer-review process.
2. Or, some altruistic people (other than junior people who might want to add some professional service to their CVs) would end up shouldering the burden for the profession as a whole. As one might guess, if the number of these altruistic persons is small, they would become overburdened very soon, and the whole system would be in trouble.

These arguments lead to the very slack enforcement of deadlines in my discipline.

I wonder why the above problems do not arise in the physical sciences?

Any thoughts, anyone?

Thanks!

[stapler]

As others have noted, physical science journals do tend to push for reasonable turn-around times.  My guess is that this is partly because progress is made very quickly in certain fields of science (including my own), and in these fields the contributors and readers don't like to wait 18 months to read about new results.

A great many physical science journals conduct all aspects of review and publishing online now (with the online versions increasingly being considered the "versions of record"), and I believe that it's this attribute that allows for reaonably fast turnaround times.

Review deadlines tend to be fairly strictly enforced in my discipline, and I'm not aware of anything close to a breakdown of the peer-review process in my field at this point.  I think most people - senior workers to junior people - consider a period of 3 to four weeks to complete a review to be entirely reasonable.

[psychle]

To follow up on my earlier post, I would like to add that the review time may end up being 3 months or longer because of a single tardy reviewer. (I know this because some journals now have internet portals that allow you to see when reviews have been submitted.) It would be nice if there was a better mechanism in place to prevent one person from holding up the process for months...

[untenured]

Coincidentally there is also a campaign  against elsevier journals because of an arms trade connection,

see

http://www.idiolect.org.uk/elsevier/petition.php

So who's up for mailing an Elsevier journal a CSR article on arms trade companies?

Untenured

[ouroboros]

To follow up on my earlier post, I would like to add that the review time may end up being 3 months or longer because of a single tardy reviewer. (I know this because some journals now have internet portals that allow you to see when reviews have been submitted.) It would be nice if there was a better mechanism in place to prevent one person from holding up the process for months...

I agree completely.  In my experience as both reviewer and author, this is the case the majority of the time.  Whenever I investigate a long delay (i.e., > 3 months before I hear anything) it's almost always chalked up to a single, tardy reviewer.  Similarly, even when I submit my review within 2 weeks the decision process still takes 3-4 months, even when there's only one other reviewer.

Unfortunately, many journals need every reviewer they can get, whether good, bad, timely, tardy, even sometimes unqualified and belligerent.  In my field in the biological sciences the signs from many journals are that the review process is starting to break down badly.  This is more noticeable at some journals than others, of course, but it seems to be a spreading problem.  I think part of the problem is that many journals are seeing huge increases in submitted manuscripts, but haven't yet placed the burden on the editors for rejecting a lot of these manuscripts.  Many of the "better" and more efficient journals out there reject as many as 50% of manuscripts without review.  It may be that more journals need to start this practice simply out of self-preservation.

Anyway, typical stats in my field based on my experience (biological science):

Post-submit "processing time:" 1 day to 4 weeks (the latter being inexcusable)
Time to first decision: 4 months
Time to second decision if revision submitted: 3 months
Time to online publication after acceptance: 1-4 months
Time to paper publication after acceptance: 6-14 months

[science_expat]

Tardy reviews *are* a big problem and it's not obvious how to deal with them. I've had two bad cases this summer (I'm an AE). In the first, the reviewer did not respond to any reminders, even to mine. (In my experience, when the AE contacts a reviewer directly, s/he generally responds with a promise of a certain date). In this instance, I made a recommendation based on one review.

In the second case, the reviewer responded to a couple of reminders but did not meet his self-imposed deadlines. I finally emailed him saying that I would be submitting my recommendation on such and such date with or without his review; he submitted the review the day before my deadline.

I've never resorted to a third reviewer because of the substantial time delays involved but I can see circumstances when this might be required, e.g. if the reviewer and AE substantially disagree.

SE

P.S. I don't think tight deadlines discourage senior people from reviewing as we as a community all benefit from rapid review.

[rayleigh]

I my discipline (Physics) the top tier journal that I submit to and review for does everything electronically.

Typical timeline from electronic submission to reading reviewers comments: 3-4 months assuming reviewers & editors are able to act in a timely manner. A wait of 6 months is considered too long. Longer than 9 months and something is wrong. Time to the article appearing in press: 6 months if things are going well, 1 year if things are going poorly.

Another journal that I also submit to and review for is not top tier. Everything they do requires paper copies to be sent to the editor (either manuscripts or reviewers comments). This is a Elsevier journal by the way. The turn around time is longer but still you should get a reviewed response within 6 months and the article in print within a year.

As a reviewer, I try to do my review within a month of receiving the manuscript electronically. I want my stuff published quickly so I try to extend the same courtesy to others.

[psychle]

Tardy reviews *are* a big problem and it's not obvious how to deal with them.

Here's one idea that I had, though I haven't devoted much time to identifying and thinking about its pros and cons:

If a paper is on a popular topic, such that reviewers are easy to come by, the review process might be speeded up by getting 5-6 people to agree to review the paper, but then making an editorial decision as soon as the desired number of reviews (e.g., 3) have come in, at which point the remaining potential reviewers are told that their services are no longer required.

Pro: This should speed up the review process because the third-fastest reviewer of six is likely to be faster than the third-fastest reviewer of three (based on my sparse knowledge of the mathematics of extreme values).

Cons: Some reviewers might be insulted if they're not able to submit their reviews, despite being asked to review the paper. However, if they are informed about the purpose and functioning of such a review process, perhaps such negative reactions could be avoided. Another potential con is that someone could be in mid-review when the review cut-off is made, thereby rendering their time and effort pointless. However, this could be avoided by having reviewers compose their reviews on an electronic system that monitors when someone has actually started a review and prevents the cut-off from being made until that review has been finished.

Anyway, this was just an idea, but one that is by no means a perfect solution to the tardy reviewer problem.

[ouroboros]

Here's one idea that I had, though I haven't devoted much time to identifying and thinking about its pros and cons:

If a paper is on a popular topic, such that reviewers are easy to come by, the review process might be sped up by getting 5-6 people to agree to review the paper, but then making an editorial decision as soon as the desired number of reviews (e.g., 3) have come in, at which point the remaining potential reviewers are told that their services are no longer required.

This is an interesting idea, psychle, but I don't think it would change the negative influence of lazy/tardy reviewers.  If you already fancy yourself too busy to be punctual with a review, I think the knowledge that there might be additional reviewers who can pick up your slack might encourage you (and others) to procrastinate on the review even more.  Realistically, I think your plan would probably result in a slight decrease in review times, but it doesn't get at the root of the issue, which is how do we a) encourage more people to be reviewers and b) encourage them to be punctual reviewers.

On this forum I've previously asked about reviewer compensation policies, and met with a surprising amount of opposition to even the idea of reviewer compensation.  The consensus seems to be that this should not be something people are compensated for since it's part of our service requirement.  But clearly, not everyone feels this way since so many people don't take the job seriously.

Personally, I think journals should keep better track of a) the quality of reviews, b) the punctuality of reviews, and c) the number of reviews for each reviewer (in decreasing order of importance).  At the end of the year they could present a "Reviewer of the Year" award, or some generic "Outstanding Service" award.  It might change the way people look at being a reviewer.  I suppose another option would be allowing authors to evaluate reviewers, but there's a bit too much room for petty retribution here.

Just some thoughts.  I'm really glad to see that people are considering these issues.  They're important, especially for the non-top-tier journals which publish 99% of the papers out there but have relatively small reviewer pools.

[seniorscholar]

Re psychle's suggestion -- frankly, if I knew other reviewers were available and had already been asked, I wouldn't bother even to read the article. Reviewing, for senior people, is a duty to the profession, but it's time-consuming (there are many other things always on the desk) and not even particularly enjoyable. And while junior folks may get some credit in promotion/merit raises for reviewing (since it indicates their opinions are valued in the field), there's nothing at all in it for senior people, not even a free subscription to the journal.

[science_expat]

The journal for which I am an AE does have a "distinguished reviewer" award. I think it's a good idea but what is much more important is that institutions value peer review for promotion and tenure.

Does significant peer review advance one's tenure case in the States?
Here in the UK, it was only added to the RAE criteria of my subpanel after a strong case for this was made during the consultation period.

[bookishone]

The American Journal of Cardiology publishes the date the manuscript was received and the date it was accepted (or "revised manuscript accepted") at the bottom of the first page of articles.

Wouldn't this help speed things up at any journal, if pressure on the editors leads to more pressure on reviewers to move things along? No one wants to admit "manuscript received July 15, 2004; manuscript accepted June 24, 2005."