In our August “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:
When is it time to pull a paper and resubmit at a different journal[?]
I’m a postdoctoral researcher. I’ve had a paper under review at a well-regarded specialist journal in my field for 18 months now. So far I’ve been through two rounds of revisions. Each time, the process goes like this: things move smoothly and quickly through most of the stages. Reviewers make comments. The associate editor makes a recommendation. Then we wait for 6-8 months for the editor-in-chief.
I know another round of revisions is coming. In principle, I don’t mind doing another round of revisions. However, I’m on the market. I’m starting to question whether I can wait the better part of another year to get a third decision.
I know reviewers are hard to secure, and there’s no guarantee switching journals will lead to a speedier process, but I’m kind of at my wit’s end here. Do I pull the paper and resubmit somewhere else in hopes of a faster process?
Another reader also writes in:
I’ve had an article showing ‘required reviews completed’ for 4+ weeks now. Reaching out to the editor has resulted in zero response. The paper has been with this journal for well over a year now. Am I crazy in thinking that this is just unacceptable? Do I read into this as it’s a ‘reject’?
And a third writes:
Given the number of queries along the lines of “what should I do when editor/reviewers take X long in circumstances Y,” perhaps there should be a dedicated series or post at the cocoon covering journal norms, etiquette, procedures under various annoying (or other) scenarios, etc. Or is there one already?
I’m happy to devote this thread to discussing all three. Please feel free to offer advice to the first two commenters quoted above, but also address the broader issues raised by the third. Personally, if I were in the first two commenters’ shoes, I would probably sit tight but (in the first person’s case) avoid submitting to that journal again in the future.
What do readers think?
Leave a Reply