Journals VS Author_Fighting for equal right!!

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
annalabcdef
annalabcdef's picture
Journals VS Author_Fighting for equal right!!

 Why the authors have to wait for the decision of a Journal for a timeless process?
A_All the Journals should have a limited time for review process, it is also good to explore the latest findings.

Why the authors have to be restricted to submit one journal at one time?
A_Like finding jobs, it is the right to submit reasonable applications at the same time, of course, one can only accept one job at last. The authors should be allowed to submit their work to more than one potential journals at one time, and make a final decision to publish their work in only one journal.

It is just all the rules all be set by the journals, we authors should fighting for our right.

Anyone who donnot want to suffer from submitting a work have any better idea on this issue??

Will TheScientis Magazine may have this topic to be discussed in the future?

marcus muench
marcus muench's picture
Let me answer as someone who

Let me answer as someone who has submitted many manuscripts and has also reviewed many manuscripts. I can best summarize my opinion of the system as less than ideal but I am hard-pressed to suggest how to make it a lot better -on the whole.  The good news is that in most fields you have the choice of many journals with different rules and procedures.  If you learn to hate one, boycott them and move on.  

As for your questions:  If your  the main author of a paper, odds are you will one day be asked to donate your time to review papers.  At that point you will understand that sometimes it is hard to get to that paper buried on your desk among all the other things you have to do.  Most reviewers take the time limit given to them seriously, and maybe miss it by a couple of days.  It helps when the editorial office is proactive in identifying good reliable reviewers and reminding them when the review is due.  This takes time ($$$) and so the smaller, less famous, journals just don't have the resources to do this as well.  Often if a reviewer fails to come through, they have to start the process over again.  Yes, sometimes and evil reviewer will use their power to slow you down, but I like to think this is not common.

Allow me to whine from the other perspective on this matter.  I have been a reviewer for a newish journal that wanted to have reviews in 7 days.  I took this to mean 7 working days (not one week).  I sent my review in about 7-8 days, fast by most standards.  The editors thanked me.  The paper came out a few days later (so a very fast online publication in about 2 weeks from submission), but none of my comments were addressed.  Some of my comments were very easy to address and actually I feel quite important.  I contacted the editors and asked what gives???  They said that because I did not respond in 7 days (weekend included) that they went with the other reviews they got.  So their practice is to send the paper to many reviewers and as soon as they have two in they declare the process complete without telling the other reviewers to never mind.  So how do you think I felt about spending the better part of a day to review this paper?  Hopefully, you get my point that this is a two way street and that speeding things up for authors can come at the cost of poor reviews and a hostile relationship between the journal and its reviewers.

You have to submit to one at a time because the cost in terms of editors, assistants, reviewers would be severely increased if all of us sent our manuscripts to multiple journals at a time.  You have to consider how much work goes into a review.  It would be mayhem.  I have reviewed the same paper for different journals (sequentially) can you imagine the odd position reviewers would be in if they were reviewing the same paper for multiple journals.  Also, if a low impact factor journal accepts your paper, would you tell them to wait to hear from Science and Nature first?  They would not like to do that so, again, it would be a big mess.

Question 3).  Again, we are lucky in the many choices of journals we have to submit our work.  The online journals offer options not available before (speed, review paradigms, color figures, article length etc) so check them out to see if you find a better fit.   I know what it is like to be jerked around and be convinced that an editor or reviewer has done you wrong, but I also believe that if your in the business long enough that it all evens out in the end.  Some days you get lucky other you don't.

annalabcdef
annalabcdef's picture
Emm, sounds very interesting.

Emm, sounds very interesting...
Very wise comments and excellent experience.

We need to look at things on both sides a...any solutiongs to this issue? how to rescue both authors and reviewers and editors...so hard.

marcus muench
marcus muench's picture
 I think a clear policy on

 I think a clear policy on how review will be conducted should be presented by the journals online.  Make the process as open as possible.  Then the rules should be upheld by the editors with a reasonable level of wiggle room for dealing with reality.  Online submission should indicate at what stage in the process your manuscript stands (received, oout for reviews, one review received, etc).  No reason with all the available technology that automated messages to remind reviewers can't be sent out at reasonable intervals.