next »

[venerable_bede]

I submitted an article to a top-notch journal last June (2007) and received a letter from the editor at the beginning of July indicating that it was out for review, and that the process could take up to six months. Well, it's now been seven months.

It's appropriate at this point to inquire with the editor about the status of that process, right? It's not too pushy to ask about it a full month beyond the "could take as long as" timeframe, is it?

And finally: what kind of wording should I use in my email? I was thinking of writing two sentences: something along the lines of "I submitted in June..." and "Might I inquire about the status of the review process?" Would that do the trick?

Sorry for the mundane questions, but I'm a bit of a newbie.

[tenured_feminist]

Yes, you can ask, as long as you're polite.

[sciencephd]

Since they have exceeded their own specified upper limit by a month, it seems more than reasonable to ask.  You don't say what field, but six months seems a extraordinarily long time to review any journal article. 

[venerable_bede]

You don't say what field, but six months seems a extraordinarily long time to review any journal article. 

You're telling me! It's in the humanities, and the things it publishes are typically on the long (sometimes very long) side. For what it's worth, the things I submitted is almost 36,000 words total (including notes and appendixes). So if a reviewer is reading 6,000 words per month, maybe six months isn't so unreasonable....

I'll dash off a quick email to the editor right now and see what's up. Thanks for your reassurance!

[terpsichore]

Yes, it's acceptable to inquire politely about the status of your article.

[donstefano]

I'm in social sciences: 3 months is fast, 4 still Ok, 5 barely acceptable, and 6 too long.
There's no problem at all sending the editor an email after 6 months.

And, 36000 words: why not cut it in four and make 4 separate articles out of it?

[trabb]

I'm in the humanities, so most of the journals to which I submit are listed in the MLA Index to Periodicals, a database that gives a self-reported (I think) time from submission to decision for most journals.  As soon as I receive confirmation of receipt, I mark on my calendar the longer of the times given; so if it's 3-5 months, I note exactly 5 months out.  On that day, I send an email inquiry.  Of course if the journal tells me something different in correspondence, I use that date since the MLA list is frequently out of date.

sciencephd:  your moniker says it all, I think.  In English, six months, far from being an extraordinarily long time to review an article, is from what I can tell pretty much the norm.  I've had articles that were out for well over a year before.  I wouldn't submit to those journals again, but it's not uncommon.  I think one of the major differences is that the state of my field changes pretty slowly.  It's not as if the article I submitted last week is going to be outdated a year or two from now.

[sciencephd]

I'm in the humanities, so most of the journals to which I submit are listed in the MLA Index to Periodicals, a database that gives a self-reported (I think) time from submission to decision for most journals.  As soon as I receive confirmation of receipt, I mark on my calendar the longer of the times given; so if it's 3-5 months, I note exactly 5 months out.  On that day, I send an email inquiry.  Of course if the journal tells me something different in correspondence, I use that date since the MLA list is frequently out of date.

sciencephd:  your moniker says it all, I think.  In English, six months, far from being an extraordinarily long time to review an article, is from what I can tell pretty much the norm.  I've had articles that were out for well over a year before.  I wouldn't submit to those journals again, but it's not uncommon.  I think one of the major differences is that the state of my field changes pretty slowly.  It's not as if the article I submitted last week is going to be outdated a year or two from now.

What do the reviews look like in these fields ? Are they very lengthy ?  How many person hours do they actually take to do ?

I think turn around times for publications in the sciences went way down when journals started putting submission, revision received, and accepted dates on page one of each paper.  There was a Darwinian selection by submitters, and the journals sped up the review accordingly.

[publishorperish1]

What do the reviews look like in these fields ? Are they very lengthy ?  How many person hours do they actually take to do ?

In my field, 6 months had been the norm until very recently, and it's probably been cut down by a month or so.  The issue, I think, isn't the amount of time it takes a reviewer to write the review (they can be fairly lengthy, but still wouldn't take all that much time), but the difficulty of finding an appropriate reviewer in a timely manner.  I've had articles that have taken much longer than 6 months to be reviewed, because reviewers had agreed to do the review, then sat on the article for several months before either deciding not to do the review after all, or just not doing it and having it taken back by the editor out of frustration.  In either case, the review process, or at least part of it, was set back to square one.

[englitprof]

What do the reviews look like in these fields ? Are they very lengthy ?  How many person hours do they actually take to do ?

In my field, 6 months had been the norm until very recently, and it's probably been cut down by a month or so.  The issue, I think, isn't the amount of time it takes a reviewer to write the review (they can be fairly lengthy, but still wouldn't take all that much time), but the difficulty of finding an appropriate reviewer in a timely manner.  I've had articles that have taken much longer than 6 months to be reviewed, because reviewers had agreed to do the review, then sat on the article for several months before either deciding not to do the review after all, or just not doing it and having it taken back by the editor out of frustration.  In either case, the review process, or at least part of it, was set back to square one.

Yep, that's what I've observed.  The long review process pretty much comes down to readers who do not or are not able to give priority to the task.