In our newest “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:
Is anyone aware of information about the time a paper spends under review and the subsequent decision? When I think about it, I’m pretty sure every paper I’ve had accepted was reviewed within a relatively quick time (say, six months at the very most), whereas whenever I’ve waited more than six months it has been rejected. It could be purely coincidental, but perhaps, say, a reviewer that leaves it for ages, then gets pushed by the editor for it, is quicker in their review (and so seeks out a few reasons for rejection) or is put in a slightly negative mood towards it, etc. etc.
One reason I ask is that, if there is something to this, it suggests one may have good reason to pull a paper from a journal if it has been under review for a long time and to submit it elsewhere, on the basis that the longer it is under review, the greater the odds of rejection. As I say, I’m aware that this is speculative, but I’m curious whether others have noted a similar phenomenon.
At least anecdotally, this seems to cohere with my general experience. If it is a real thing, I suspect there might be a multiplicity of reasons for it, such as referees taking longer to write critical reviews (which plausibly require much more thought and detail), editors seeking out a third review if there is a split recommendation between two initial reviews (one recommending acceptance, another major revisions or rejection, etc.). But again, this is just speculation.
What do readers think? Any helpful insights to share?
Leave a Reply