In our new “how can we help you?” thread, a reader writes:

I have a paper that’s been sitting with a top generalist journal for over a year. Throughout this long wait, I’ve contacted the editor periodically. Each time, I’ve received a polite reply saying they’re still trying to secure reviewers, as everyone they’ve invited has declined. Actually, on two separate occasions during this period, the status has switched to ‘Under Review’ for several months. This leads me to believe that reviewers have accepted the invitation only to drop out later.

I have a couple of theories about why it’s been so difficult. The paper is a bit niche, drawing on a concept from domain B to analyze something in domain A, and there might just be a very small pool of people who feel qualified to review it. It’s also possible that I’ve exhausted the reviewer pool; the paper was rejected from a few other journals before this, so the most obvious candidates may have already reviewed a previous version and aren’t keen to do so again.

So, my question is: After this frustratingly long wait, should I withdraw the paper and try elsewhere? Or should I wait it out for a few more months and see if the journal’s luck changes? My big worry is that withdrawing won’t solve the underlying problem, and I’ll just face the same difficulty finding reviewers at the next journal.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Yikes, a year?? I would probably withdraw, with the hope that another journal will do better. A year just seems to me way too long for this sort of issue to remain unresolved.

What do readers think?

Posted in

3 responses to “”

  1. wouldn’t pull it yet

    I would leave it, for what it’s worth. I agree with your interpretation of the status changes, and the fact that the journal hasn’t decided to reject it despite the trouble shows some amount of investment. Other journals might end up asking the same referees and get slow responses too.
    When I’ve submitted to top generalist journals the past couple years, they’ve typically taken 5-7 months for an initial decision. I’ve heard of other people needing to wait a year or more. Desk rejects are faster but still often take multiple months, except at Imprint, which is very fast with desk rejects. Overall I think generalist journals are just pretty overloaded right now.

  2. editor

    I suggest waiting a bit more, unless this journal is known for being disorganized.

    I would also suggest use this time to think about revising the paper. One typical reason for the difficulty in securing referees is that the thesis does not look interesting or impactful enough to justify the work required to engage with a niche piece. Maybe you can do something in preparation for the submission to the next journal.

  3. ChastenedAuthor

    I can commiserate. I, too, have an article out that’s a bit niche, had a few rejections, and a good journal has had it and is trying to get reviewers. They haven’t had it as long as a year, but my instinct is to give it a little more time if the journal otherwise has a reputation for timely decisions.

    As others have pointed out, if it’s not simply journal dysfunction, it’s very possible the same issue occurs at the next journal. But, if it helps, just know some of us are in the boat with you.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading