next »

[science_expat]

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."

Most journals in my field do this and every journal has a commitment to fast turn around times. Almost invariably, the problems are with the reviewers - and I sympathize with them when acting as a reviewer myself.

I really think that a big part of the problem is that we're so busy that journal peer review is fairly low on the priority list. It's a moral obligation but not much more. This is why I think internal reward/recognition is important.

[bubbahotep]

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."

Im an AE for an elsevier journal in the finance/econ area. And this is standard.
Whats the problem with elsevier making profit folks? What are we, stinking commies... Slaps self. Sorry, electoral rhetoric getting to me....
Seriously, the problem is in my experience 99.9% of time in the area of tardy reviewers. Electronic submission and management really speeds this process. And thats what elsevier are doing.
BTW - im an AE for a non-profit press (awful) and for Blackwell (ok) so I have some experience in other area. Now blackwell, they give all the money to the poor dont they????

[scienceguy]

"Whats the problem with elsevier making profit folks? What are we, stinking commies... "

I don't mean hijack this thread, but since you asked...

The problem is that Elsevier gets 100% of their content for free.

And then they get their manuscripts expertly refereed... also for free.

And then they charge institutions $10,000/year for subscriptions to journals that contain content they didn't pay a dime for that is written by people who work at those very institutions.

And then we wonder why universities cannot afford to pay adjuncts a living wage.

Ain't capitalism great?

Nice work if you can get it.

[psychle]

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."

This is already done by most journals in my field. However, such dates can be deceiving and may have nothing to do with tardy reviews. The "manuscript received" date is typically the date that the original manuscript was received. In most cases, manuscripts have to go through one or more revisions before being accepted, and revisions can take time, especially if one has to design and run additional experiments (for an empirical paper), refine a theoretical argument, etc. So if there is a year-long gap between the received and accepted dates, a large chunk of that could be due to revision time rather than review time.

And there may be other circumstances that result in long gaps. For example, I know a person with a paper that was "received" in 1997 but not "accepted" until 2003. The long gap had little to do with review time, but to the fact that the authors changed institutions and simply didn't get around to revising the paper for a few years...

[bubbahotep]

"Whats the problem with elsevier making profit folks? What are we, stinking commies... "

I don't mean hijack this thread, but since you asked...

The problem is that Elsevier gets 100% of their content for free.

And then they get their manuscripts expertly refereed... also for free.

And then they charge institutions $10,000/year for subscriptions to journals that contain content they didn't pay a dime for that is written by people who work at those very institutions.

And then we wonder why universities cannot afford to pay adjuncts a living wage.

Ain't capitalism great?

Nice work if you can get it.

They dont pay AE's either :)
Seriously, the quality of the journal is often a function of how well its run. Elsevier can run a snazzy operation with the fees they charge. They have many quality journals.
Start a journal, charge less than 10k pa and see how long it takes to get to be seen as quality.

[science_expat]

But Elsevier also has many low quality journals. And they bundle the poor ones with the good ones and force institutions to buy expensive packages, limiting access.

As I've said, I have mixed feelings about this review for Elsevier and it's probably my last for them. I will not submit my own work to one of their journals.

[ouroboros]

Hmmm.  I think Elsevier is monitoring our recent discussion of reviewer compensation.

Just yesterday I received a request to review a paper in an Elsevier journal.  In my field it's actually quite a good journal, so although I share expat's disdain for Elsevier's outrageous pricing and monopolizing, I have yet to divorce myself fully from this particular journal.

Anyway, the invitation offered me a 30-day subscription to an abstract search service as compensation for being a reviewer.  I haven't looked into it, but I'm guessing that the service is an Elsevier product and they're mostly just using this as a marketing opportunity.

Whatever the case, this is the first time I've received such an offer and I was interested to see that even the ever-powerful scientific publishing behemoth Elsevier is starting to consider compensating reviewers, even though they're doing it in a self-serving way that's not very enticing.  Just thought this new-to-me development might interest a few of you.

[science_expat]

That is interesting, Ouroboros. Thanks.

They certainly didn't offer me any incentive.

[bubbahotep]

Hmmm.  I think Elsevier is monitoring our recent discussion of reviewer compensation.

Just yesterday I received a request to review a paper in an Elsevier journal.  In my field it's actually quite a good journal, so although I share expat's disdain for Elsevier's outrageous pricing and monopolizing, I have yet to divorce myself fully from this particular journal.

Anyway, the invitation offered me a 30-day subscription to an abstract search service as compensation for being a reviewer.  I haven't looked into it, but I'm guessing that the service is an Elsevier product and they're mostly just using this as a marketing opportunity.

Whatever the case, this is the first time I've received such an offer and I was interested to see that even the ever-powerful scientific publishing behemoth Elsevier is starting to consider compensating reviewers, even though they're doing it in a self-serving way that's not very enticing.  Just thought this new-to-me development might interest a few of you.

Its SCOPUS. An alternative to ISI web of science. Which is big bad elsevier breaking a monopoly......
Why dont you try it and see if you like it. After all, its free.

[ouroboros]

Its SCOPUS. An alternative to ISI web of science. Which is big bad elsevier breaking a monopoly......
Why dont you try it and see if you like it. After all, its free.

That's it, bubba.  I couldn't think of the name, thanks.

I see there's a bit of mockery in your post (not taken personally, though), so I'll explain my feelings about Elsevier in a bit more detail.  I don't just dislike them because I'm a commie leftist that hates all big companies.

1. I don't need to say too much about the pricing issue.  I think it's pretty universally agreed that a lot of "corporate" journals are overpriced and really stretch libraries' budgets.  Sure, in many cases you get good product for what you pay, but as expat has pointed out, often they're bundled with a bunch of lousy journals that no one wants.  This is more than an inconvenience, since almost all big libraries have serious problems with periodical space.  At my PhD institution they rented off-campus storage and had to constantly drive back-n-forth bringing journals in for patrons.  This costs a lot of money, so useless journals in a library aren't harmless.

2. In my field, the top journals are almost all society journals.  In general they produce a better quality product for about 10% of the cost of inferior (but still good) corporate journals.  So, what are we really paying for when we subscribe to the corporate journals?

3. This is the main reason for me.  Several years ago I had two papers accepted by Elsevier journals (this is before I'd started to consider things like journals pricing, so please don't give me a lecture for being a hypocrite).  In the last steps before publication, I received automatically-generated messages from the Elsevier Editorial System asking me to *go back through the literature and make sure I'd cited all relevant papers from THE ELSEVIER JOURNAL.*  This is not OK.  The excuse was so that I could help "develop themes of research within the journal" (whatever that means), but I think it's pretty clearly a thinly-veiled and unethical attempt to artificially inflate Impact Factors.  I know these messages came from above because I received them from two different Elsevier journals, each message having identical wording.  I contacted one of the editors and he had no idea that these messages were being sent out (he was a friend of mine, so I believed him).

So, these things, especially the third, have made me very suspicious of corporate journals.  Journals should have at the heart of their mission improving the quality of scholarship, dissemination of the best research, etc.  What I've seen from Elsevier suggests that these are among their goals, but only insofar as they correspond with the Big E's growth and financial goals.

You may not care, and if not, that's fine.  Just wanted to explain that I have reasons for my views on Elsevier.

--O

[psychle]

Several years ago I had two papers accepted by Elsevier journals (this is before I'd started to consider things like journals pricing, so please don't give me a lecture for being a hypocrite).  In the last steps before publication, I received automatically-generated messages from the Elsevier Editorial System asking me to *go back through the literature and make sure I'd cited all relevant papers from THE ELSEVIER JOURNAL.*  This is not OK.  The excuse was so that I could help "develop themes of research within the journal" (whatever that means), but I think it's pretty clearly a thinly-veiled and unethical attempt to artificially inflate Impact Factors.  I know these messages came from above because I received them from two different Elsevier journals, each message having identical wording.  I contacted one of the editors and he had no idea that these messages were being sent out (he was a friend of mine, so I believed him).

Unbelievable... this definitely reinforces my negative opinion of Elsevier.

In reference to earlier posts: I've also received the limited subscription offer for SCOPUS when I've reviewed for Elsevier journals, but I've never bothered trying it out.

[bubbahotep]

Its SCOPUS. An alternative to ISI web of science. Which is big bad elsevier breaking a monopoly......
Why dont you try it and see if you like it. After all, its free.

That's it, bubba.  I couldn't think of the name, thanks.

I see there's a bit of mockery in your post (not taken personally, though), so I'll explain my feelings about Elsevier in a bit more detail.  I don't just dislike them because I'm a commie leftist that hates all big companies.
SNIP

3. This is the main reason for me.  Several years ago I had two papers accepted by Elsevier journals (this is before I'd started to consider things like journals pricing, so please don't give me a lecture for being a hypocrite).  In the last steps before publication, I received automatically-generated messages from the Elsevier Editorial System asking me to *go back through the literature and make sure I'd cited all relevant papers from THE ELSEVIER JOURNAL.*  This is not OK.  The excuse was so that I could help "develop themes of research within the journal" (whatever that means), but I think it's pretty clearly a thinly-veiled and unethical attempt to artificially inflate Impact Factors.  I know these messages came from above because I received them from two different Elsevier journals, each message having identical wording.  I contacted one of the editors and he had no idea that these messages were being sent out (he was a friend of mine, so I believed him).

So, these things, especially the third, have made me very suspicious of corporate journals.  Journals should have at the heart of their mission improving the quality of scholarship, dissemination of the best research, etc.  What I've seen from Elsevier suggests that these are among their goals, but only insofar as they correspond with the Big E's growth and financial goals.

You may not care, and if not, that's fine.  Just wanted to explain that I have reasons for my views on Elsevier.

--O

No offence meant or taken which is good... The last point sucks. I agree, cite only that which is relevant (unless its my work, then cite it all). 
Im surprised re the back and forth of books etc. The main advantage I think now of elsevier is that its all electronically available (which costs a bomb to set up and run etc.).
However, to other posters - dont knock SCOPUS or any other service until you try it. That you dont like the vendor is fine, but you have to make sure that you take every advantage given to you to find the relevant work. I hate the American Economic Association, say. Does that mean I ignore EconLit? No.

What about them Donkeys then? Go Blue.... (ignites flame war and runs cravenly away)

[smbriver]

Field: Ecology.

I submitted recently to a European journal that was all on-line and electronic.  Besides receiving confirmation of submission, I received comments from the editor and two reviewer within 1 month.  Major revision was required within 2 WEEKS.  I didn't even read the email until that date passed (Oops).  My guess is that this journal is way fast.

I typically hear that my paper isn't acceptable to a journal within 2-3 weeks.

I typically receive the first round of reviews from the AE and reviewers from 2 - 6 months.

Journals usually require that revisions are resubmitted within 3-6 months.

I have typically heard back within 1-3 weeks about acceptance if the paper did not go out for another review.  Another review takes another 2-3 months.

Once accepted, it has taken 3-9 months to see it in press.

[creationrebel]

The first time I submitted was to a second-tier English journal, and I heard back in 3 months.  They invited me to revise and resubmit, but in the meantime I got an offer to have a revised version included in a book collection,  so I went with that.

The next time I submitted a piece to a top journal, and they took 5 months to get back to me.  But they accepted it without revision, so I wasn't complaining.  It's been 5 months since they accepted it, but I don't expect it to appear in print for at least another 5 months.

[tenured_feminist]

Elsevier deserves every particle of sh!t they're getting and more.  Their pricing practices are outrageous and unethical, and I refuse to publish in or review for a journal published by them.  In addition to pricing individual journals at outrageous levels, they offer non-adjustable "packages" to push circulation numbers on their weaker journals.  They are contributing in huge part to the crisis in library budgets.  If we are all good capitalists, then we should simply make rational market choices and decide that the products they are marketing are not worth spending 30% of an individual library's journal budget to obtain, nor should libraries choose to maintain subscriptions to one or two ridiculously priced journals and implicitly chose not to buy any books from the equivalent of an entire major university press' run in a calendar year. /rant


In my experience, the editors of individual journals and their approach matters more than discipline.  If a group of editors can set up an effective review structure and good relationships with reviewers, they can extract better reviews quicker.