next »

[sciencephd]

Nuts.   

[obprof]

Even if a journal asks reviewers to respond in six weeks, the total review cycle will take longer.

Add a week at the beginning for the editor to choose the reviewers, and add two weeks at the end for the editor to write their summary report.

And add another multiple of six weeks for every time that the editor ends up with a deadbeat reviewer who waits for a final reminder to let the editor know that he or she will not be completing the review after all.

[jerseyjay]

Four months?!

I submitted an article to a journal in June 2008. Around six months (the given time frame) later, I emailed the editor with whom I had dealt before. Turns out that he quit and was in Europe. The new editor was apologetic and said another several months might be necessary since she had to track down the reviewers. About a month ago, I contact them again, and it turns out that the editor had come down with some terrible disease and there was a new editor, who was very apologetic and promised me all the reviews would be in next week.

At this point, I have lost all interest in the topic (which was a revised version of an article that was rejected, for the first time, in 2005). It is an interdiciplinary piece, bordering literature and history, which might help explain the delay. The journal itself is not particularly prestigious, and this one piece will not really make or break me. If it is rejected I probably will let it die. But, besides wondering if the draft is cursed (for the editors, not for me), I am just curious what will happen with the piece.

[airball]

Something of a follow-up here, though it's a book rather than an article. My humanities MS is under review at Fancy UP. I sent it in July and (to my shock) the editor said, "I've sent it to the readers and I'll get back to you by September 1." (I have some idea who is reading the book, and hu is insanely productive and more than capable of this.)

I realize that in academic publishing an eight week turn-around for a book (even a shortish one) is the equivalent of a nanosecond. But I'm on the market, and would love to have  "Under Contract" on my CV rather than "Under Review." At what point can I drop a very polite note explaining my situation?

If only he hadn't said Sept 1...

airball

[pinkmouse]

I realize that in academic publishing an eight week turn-around for a book (even a shortish one) is the equivalent of a nanosecond. But I'm on the market, and would love to have  "Under Contract" on my CV rather than "Under Review." At what point can I drop a very polite note explaining my situation?

Well, I wouldn't write on September 2. Give him 10 days - 2 weeks grace period, then query. Did he give you the estimated date by email? If so, just reply to that message so he can see what he wrote (people do forget) and won't think you're overeager/pushy.

[seniorscholar]

Something of a follow-up here, though it's a book rather than an article. My humanities MS is under review at Fancy UP. I sent it in July and (to my shock) the editor said, "I've sent it to the readers and I'll get back to you by September 1."

"September 1" for most academics means "As soon as I get my syllabus done and survive the first week of classes I'll write up the stack of notes I took while reading the ms." or words to that effect. Try to be patient for at least a couple of weeks, after which take the advice to inquire in an e-mail that includes the original promise.

[scratch32]

Another follow-up to airball's follow-up. I sent off a ms to a top-tier journal in the humanities back in early June. The very next day, the editor emailed me to let me know that the ms is being sent out to readers and a decision will be made "as soon as possible."

I don't really have any plans to bother the editor just yet, of course. My question is, can I use the information in the MLA directory of periodicals as a guideline to decide when to send a query? According to the directory, time between submission and decision is 3 months.

Or, since no time line was given by the editor, am I stuck waiting?

[pinkmouse]

scratch32: I think at 3 months a polite "could you give me a timeline for the review process" email is not out of line.

It's through such queries I have learned of editorial resignations, illnesses, AWOL reviewers, and other delays that would not have been explained to me if I hadn't queried.

I once left an article for over a year, and when I finally queried, found that the editor had changed and had no record of my submission, they did a search in the office and found my article behind the filing cabinet or something, it had never been sent for review, and so that was a year wasted. Since then, I don't see anything wrong with a polite check.

[mickeymantle]

Before answering, I'd like to share my own publication lag story.  I had an article accepted at a top-level journal in my field about 18 months ago.  The editor told me that he couldn't publish the article until later this year.  Well, I just received the proofs, and the article will be published by his promised time.  So I guess honesty still goes a long way.

In addition, I agree with the previous poster.  Do NOT leave any submitted articles or ms's unanswered for for more than 6 months.  I had a similar horror story with a ms that collected dust, so to speak, at a prestigious press for a year.  If a tenure clock is ticking, so to speak, time is of the essence.

[airball]

Another follow-up to airball's follow-up. I sent off a ms to a top-tier journal in the humanities back in early June. The very next day, the editor emailed me to let me know that the ms is being sent out to readers and a decision will be made "as soon as possible."

I don't really have any plans to bother the editor just yet, of course. My question is, can I use the information in the MLA directory of periodicals as a guideline to decide when to send a query? According to the directory, time between submission and decision is 3 months.

Or, since no time line was given by the editor, am I stuck waiting?

I sent an email to the editor asking for clarification of the review process. (It is being considered for a series, and I wasn't sure if it went first to the series editors and then to an outside reviewer.)

You could ask something along the lines of, "How does the review and contract process work? And while I know that you are at the mercy of reviewers, do you have a sense of how long the process usually takes?"

airball

[scratch32]

Thanks for all the insight.

[hyperbole]

2 quick stories:

1) I sent an essay to a semi-prestigious journal whose MLA response time was  6mo. At around fifth month, it was accepted; contract signed. Time passes. A new editorial manager contacts me and apologizes for the delay, says the piece will be out soon. More time passes. I get antsy since the same info is going in my book. By the time I get another human to talk to, a new manager is on duty, very apologetic, wants me to sign another contract. I decline. Piece is happily placed in my book.

2) Another essay was with a prestigious journal (MLA response reported 4 mos.). After 6, I send a query. After 8, another. After 10, I send an impassioned appeal that almost instantly yields a judgement. Although normally one receives feedback from at least 2 reviewers, I get a rejection and very positive feedback from only one reader.

Moral: Don't rely on the MLA periodical directory for accurate response times. And sometimes when you push very hard after much time has passed, the editors think it's just as easy to reject you and cut you loose.

[mickeymantle]

I possess a similar story.  I sent an article to a rather prestigious journal, which sent it back to me within three months with a rejection.  The editors said that two readers had looked at it.  When I looked at the reports, however, only one reader was included.  I thought of emailing the editors, but I sensed I'd get nowhere.  In addition, I don't think I'll submit another article to this journal.  Honesty is still the best policy.