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

I recently had a “minor revisions” verdict from a journal that was actually an unofficial acceptance and an instruction to de-anonymize the manuscript and to to the final formatting in line with the journal’s house style (etc.). They explicitly said that the peer review process had finished and that I needed to do the final formatting before they can accept it.

Now, though, I’ve been waiting to hear back from them for several weeks. I know that’s normal for an actual revision, but does anyone have a sense of how long this can take for a fake revision that was effectively an acceptance? This is the first time I’ve had to do all the final proofing steps with the acceptance hanging over my head—indeed, I’ve published with this same journal in the past and they didn’t do this! Is this the new norm? Time is of the essence for me in terms of being able to report that it is accepted and uploading a pre-print and all of that, so I’m wondering if there’s a point at which (2 months? 4 months?) I should just treat the damn thing as having been accepted. Is there any chance that they could reject it at this point?

I’m not sure. Do any readers have helpful insights to share?

Posted in

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading