Is a Journal Taking a Long Time to Review a Good Sign

Page Content

What is the reviewer looking for?

Possible outcomes of peer review

Mutual reasons for rejection

What to do if your manuscript gets rejected

Responding to the reviewer

Peer Review

You want your work to be the all-time it can perhaps be, and that's where peer review comes in.

Reviewer Resources Heart

Learn more nearly peer review, including how to become a reviewer.

Your work is shared with experts in your field of study in social club to gain their insight and suggestions. Reviewers will evaluate the originality and thoroughness of your piece of work, and whether information technology is within scope for the periodical you lot take submitted to. There are many forms of peer review, from traditional models similar single-blind and double-blind review to newer models, such as open up and transferable review. Learn most our Transparent Peer Review pilot in collaboration with Publons and ScholarOne (role of Clarivate, Spider web of Science).

The length of the peer review process varies by journal, so check with the editors or the staff of the journal to which you are submitting to for details of the process for that particular journal. Click here to read Wiley's review confidentiality policy and check the review model for each periodical we publish.

What is the reviewer looking for?

Originality, scientific significance, conciseness, precision, and abyss

In general, at first read-through reviewers will exist assessing your statement's structure, the clarity of the language, and content. They volition be asking themselves the following questions:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is information technology relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the field of study area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text articulate and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the bear witness and arguments presented? Exercise they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they take a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their example credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add together to the newspaper? Do they assistance understanding or are they superfluous?
• Is the argument well-constructed and clear? Are there whatever factual errors or invalid arguments?

They may also consider the following:

• Does the championship properly reverberate the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the newspaper?
• Exercise the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Does the paper follow a clear and organized structure?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Upon closer readings, the reviewer volition be looking for any major issues:

• Are there whatever major flaws?
• If experimental design features prominently in the paper, is the methodology sound?
• Is the research replicable, reproducible, and robust? Does it follow best do and meet ethical standards?
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the bear witness they nowadays stiff enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• Are there any major presentational issues? Are figures & tables, linguistic communication and manuscript structure all clear enough to accurately appraise the work?
• Are there whatever ethical issues?

The reviewer volition also note minor issues that need to exist corrected:

• Are the correct references cited? Are citations excessive, express, or biased?
• Are at that place whatever factual, numerical, or unit errors? If then, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures advisable, sufficient, and correctly labelled?

Possible outcomes of peer review

The journal'south editor or editorial lath considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and uses this information to make it at a decision. In add-on to the comments received from the review, editors also base their decisions on:

• The periodical's aims and audience
• The land of knowledge in the field
• The level of competition for acceptance and folio space within the journal

The post-obit stand for the range of possible outcomes:

• Accept without whatever changes (acceptance): The journal will publish the paper in its original form. This type of determination event is rare
• Take with minor revisions (credence): The journal volition publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections. This is typically the all-time outcome that authors should hope for
• Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): The journal will publish the paper provided the authors brand the changes suggested past the reviewers and/or editors
• Revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): The periodical is willing to reconsider the newspaper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes
• Reject the paper (outright rejection): The journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors brand major revisions

The conclusion consequence will exist accompanied by the reviewer reports and some commentary from the editor that explains why the conclusion has been reached. If the decision involves revision for the author, the specific changes that are required should exist conspicuously stated in the decision alphabetic character and review reports. The author tin then respond to each point in turn.

Common reasons for rejection

The manuscript fails the technical screening: Before manuscripts are sent to the EIC or handling editor, many editorial offices starting time perform some checks. The chief reasons that papers can be rejected at this stage are:

• The commodity contains elements that are suspected to exist plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal (submitting the same newspaper to multiple journals at the same time is not allowed)
• The manuscript is insufficiently well prepared; for example, lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references, and tables and figures
• The English is not of sufficient quality to allow a useful peer review to have place
• The figures are non consummate or are not clear plenty to read
• The article does not accommodate to the well-nigh important aspects of the specific journal's Writer Guidelines

The manuscript does non fall within the Aims and Scope of the journal: The piece of work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journal

The manuscript is incomplete: For case, the article contains observations but is not a full study or it discusses findings in relation to some of the piece of work in the field but ignores other important work

A articulate hypothesis or enquiry aim was non established or the question behind the work is non of involvement in the field

The goal of the research was over-ambitious, and hence it could non realistically exist achieved

There are flaws in the procedures and/or analysis of the data:

• The study lacked clear control groups or other comparing metrics
• The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that tin exist repeated
• The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field

The conclusions were exaggerated: The conclusions cannot exist justified on the basis of the rest of the paper

• The arguments are casuistic, unstructured or invalid
• The information do non support the conclusions
• The conclusions ignore big portions of the literature

The research topic was of little significance:

• It is archival, or of marginal interest to the field; it is only a pocket-size extension of a different paper, ofttimes from the aforementioned authors
• Findings are incremental and do not significantly advance the field
• The work is clearly part of a larger report, chopped upwardly to brand as many manufactures as possible (and then-chosen "salami publication")

Bad writing: If the language, construction, or figures are so poor that the merit of the newspaper can't be assessed, and so the newspaper will be rejected. It's a good idea to inquire a native English language speaker to read the paper earlier submitting. Wiley Editing Services offers English Language Editing services, which you tin can use prior to submission if you are non confident in the quality of your English language writing skills

What to practice if your manuscript gets rejected

It is very common for papers to be rejected. Studies betoken that 21% of papers are rejected without review, and approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review.

If your paper has been rejected prior to peer review due to lack of subject fit, then find a new periodical to submit your work to and move on.

Nevertheless, if you receive a rejection subsequently your paper has been reviewed, you will take a rich source of data about possible improvements that you could make. You have the following options:

Make the recommended changes and resubmit to the same journal:

This choice could well be your peak choice if y'all are keen to publish in a particular journal and if the editor has indicated that they will accept your paper if revisions are made. If the editor has issued an outright rejection and does not wish to reconsider the paper, yous should respect this decision and submit to a dissimilar journal.

Make changes and submit to a unlike journal:

If yous decide to try a dissimilar journal, you should nonetheless carefully consider the comments you received during the first circular of review, and piece of work on improving your manuscript earlier submitting elsewhere. Make sure that you suit details like the cover letter, referencing and any other journal specific details before submitting to a unlike journal.

Make no changes and submit to a different journal:

While this option is an easy one, it is not recommended. Information technology's likely that many of the suggestions fabricated during the original review would lead to an improved paper and past not addressing these points you are wasting a) the effort expended in the first round of review, and b) the opportunity to increment your chances of acceptance at the side by side periodical. Furthermore, at that place is a chance that your manuscript may be assessed by the aforementioned reviewers at a new journal (specially if you lot are publishing in a niche field). In this case, their recommendation will not change if yous have non addressed the concerns raised in their earlier review. 1 exception would be if you are submitting to a journal that participates in a Manuscript Transfer Plan, where authors can agree to have their manuscript and reviews transferred to a new journal for consideration without making changes.

Appeal against the determination:

The periodical should have a publicly described policy for appealing confronting editorial decisions. If you lot feel that the determination was based on an unfair assessment of your paper, or that at that place were major errors in the review procedure, so you lot are inside your rights as an author to appeal. If you wish to appeal a decision, take the time to inquiry that periodical's appeal process and review and address the points raised by the reviewer to prepare a reasoned and logical response.

Throw the manuscript away and never resubmit it:

Rejection can be disheartening, and information technology may exist tempting to make up one's mind that it's not worth the trouble of resubmitting. But, this is not the best outcome for either you or the wider enquiry community. Your data may be highly valuable to someone else, or may help another researcher to avert generating similar negative results.

Responding to the reviewer

Y'all may not be able to control what the reviewers write in their review comments, merely you can control the way yous react to their comments. Information technology's useful to call back these points:

Reviewers have, on the whole, given fourth dimension and endeavor to constructively criticize your article

Reviewers are volunteers and have given up their own time to evaluate your newspaper in order to contribute to the inquiry community. Reviewers very rarely receive formal compensation beyond recognition from the editors of the attempt they accept expended. The author will go the ultimate credit, but reviewers are often key contributors to the shape of the final paper. Although the comments you receive may feel harsh, most reviewers are too authors and therefore will be trying to highlight how the paper could be improved. And then, it is of import to be grateful for the fourth dimension that both reviewers and editors have spent evaluating your paper – and to express this gratitude in your response.

The importance of skilful manners

You should remain polite and thoughtful throughout any and all response to reviewers and editors. You are much more than likely to receive a positive response in return and this will assistance build a constructive relationship with both reviewer and editor in the future.

Don't take criticism every bit a personal attack

As stated previously, it is very rare that a paper will be accepted without any form of revisions requested. Information technology is the job of the editor and reviewer to brand sure that the published papers are scientifically sound, factual, clear and complete. In order to achieve this, information technology will be necessary to draw attention to areas of comeback. While this may be difficult for y'all as an author, the criticism received is not intended to be personal.

Avoid personalizing responses to the reviewer

Sticking to the facts and avoiding personal attacks is imperative. It's a adept idea to wait 24 to 72 hours before responding to a determination letter—then re-read the electronic mail. This simple process will remove much of the personal bias that could pollute appeals messages written in rage or disappointment. If you lot respond in anger, or in an belligerent fashion the editor and reviewers are much less likely to respond favorably.

Recollect, even if you call back the reviewer is incorrect, this doesn't necessarily hateful that you are right! It is possible that the reviewer has made a mistake, just it is also possible that the reviewer was non able to understand your point because of a lack of clarity, or omission of crucial detail in your paper.

Evaluating the reviewer comments and planning your response

After you lot have read the decision letter and the reviewers comments, wait for at least 24 hours, then take a fresh look at the comments provided. This will help to neutralize the initial emotional response you may accept and let you to determine what the reviewers are asking for in a more objective manner.

Spending time assessing the scope of the revisions requested volition assistance you evaluate the extent of endeavor required and prioritize the work you may need to undertake. Information technology will too help y'all to provide a comprehensive response in your letter of answer.

Some useful steps to consider:

• Brand a list of all the reviewer comments and number them
• Categorize the listing equally follows
• requests for clarification of existing text, addition of text to fill up a gap in the paper, or boosted experimental details
• requests to reanalyze, re-express, or reinterpret existing data
• requests for additional experiments or further proof of concept
• requests you just cannot meet
• Note downwards the action/response that you lot program to undertake for each comment. If there are requests that you cannot come across, you demand to address these in your response – providing a logical, reasoned caption for why the study is non detrimentally affected by non making the changes requested

Farther reading:

polimakeles.blogspot.com

Source: https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/submission-peer-review/peer-review.html

Share this post