Why does Peer Review take so long? (Part II)

Continued from last week's post...

I’ve had some pretty good feedback from the last post, which leads me to want to continue it this week. The more I read other blogs and pieces on peer review, the more I realise that my interpretation of “taking a long time” and that of an author (especially one who is relatively new to publishing) are probably not the same thing. Why? Well, I’m increasingly convinced that there’s not much information out there about the nuts and bolts, as well as the nooks and crannies, of the reviewing process and the things that clog the gears. 

I would say, from my experience in the humanities and social sciences that you shouldn't start getting antsy until the 4-6 month point. And then rather than sending a demanding email, just send a polite email to the contact person (this should  be mentioned in the confirmation of submission email) and ask what the status is. Expect a vague answer. If it's taken this long, at least it means it's probably gone out for review - and that in itself is a victory.

So, again, here are some more reasons why it’s taking so long…

1.) Reviewers are Declining.

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Reviewing is a voluntary exercise; the system relies on the good will of academics. That being said, there are times when we have the unfortunate circumstance of having multiple “declines” for a single paper. I’ve seen double digit invitations go out before someone agrees. Does this mean your paper is inherently bad? Probably not. It probably just means that it’s either a busy time of year for academia as a whole or a busy time for your subject. For example, if you are a researcher in linguistics and you submit a paper two weeks before the International Linguistics Conference, then we are likely to get multiple declines as the subject specialists are preparing for the conference. Another issue could be that your abstract and title do a poor job in explaining your paper. Reviewers tend to have to decide whether to review on only a few things:

1.)    The letter/email from the editor

2.)    The reputation of the journal

3.)    The title of the paper

4.)    The abstract of the paper

5.)    The expected turnaround time

You have control of only two of these items, so make them count. Make sure your abstract and title truly reflect the content of your paper and are written well. You need to sell your paper and its significance. We can’t rewrite your abstract to make it more attractive to reviewers; you need to make it concise and full of impact. (I see a post on abstracts and titles in the near future). 

2.)  A Reviewer has Backed Out.

This, for me, is one of the more frustrating things about managing the review process. A reviewer agrees and is given X amount of time (let’s say four weeks) to complete the review. In week 3 (or 4 or 5), the reviewer emails and says that due to workload or time commitments, s/he can no longer complete the review. This means that we have to start again trying to find another reviewer and give that person the same four weeks once s/he has accepted. 

3.) A Reviewer has Asked for an Extension

This one isn’t so frustrating for us. This means that the reviewer knows that the review won’t be completed in the four weeks we gave, but instead of leaving us hanging, s/he has contacted us and asked for an extension on the due date. We update the system. New due date is issued. We may have to do this again – remember in my last post when I mentioned it pays for us to be flexible? This is where that comes in. It’s preferable to know it’s coming, is in the reviewer’s mind, but will be a bit late than to have to start again.

4.) A Reviewer has Left Us Hanging

This is quite possibly the most frustrating reason. In this scenario, a reviewer has accepted, but we never hear from her/him again. This happens quite a bit in book reviewing (another post for another day), but it also happens in manuscript reviewing. If we follow up repeatedly but get no response, we’ll start looking for another reviewer. But then we’ve just wasted the four weeks that we don’t suspect anything is amiss, then the follow-up time, and then we’re back to square one finding a replacement. 

5.) Another Review is Needed

Sometimes, when reviews are returned, they do not agree.  It’s the editor’s job to analyse the two reviews and make the final decision; but it’s not unusual to have one reviewer recommend minor revisions and another recommend rejection.  Unless the paper happens to be in the editor’s specific research area, then it will most likely be sent for another review. Add four more weeks and the risk of all of the above.

 

6.) There’s Something about Your Paper that Needed Amending/Fixing 

Generally, papers come in, and they adhere to our requirements and guidelines (yet another future post and one of my biggest pet peeves). However, there are occasions when something comes in, and I’ve had to do a bit of amending. Whilst this is never to the paper itself, it could be to file formatting or removing identifying details. For example, if you have dutifully taken your name off and taken out your self-citations but left a footnote or an acknowledgement thanking your department and funder, these will need to be checked. Also, it may turn out that when a reviewer finally gets to your paper on week 3, he/she can't access the file for whatever reason. These are normally fixed pretty quickly, but it still adds time.

7.) There is a problem. 

This doesn’t happen very often. By a problem, I mean that a reviewer suspects plagiarism or another ethical issue with the paper and has queried it with the editor. The editor must then investigate, possibly speak to the publisher, and correspond with the reviewer. The author will most likely be told that the paper is under review throughout the duration of these conversations, as papers stay in “Under Review” until a decision is made. 

 

SIDENOTE: Here's a plea for anyone and everyone who peer reviews – want to be a better citizen of the peer reviewing world? Then please, please, please communicate with the administrator or editor.

There are more reasons, which I'll continue to add as future posts, but I'm a bit preoccupied today as a close friend had a baby girl yesterday (hurrah!) and I was able to find a Mr Noisy onesie for my nephew who will be born in April (hurrah!).

As always, Tweet to @ECRPublishing , email, or leave a comment with any questions or ideas for future posts. I've gotten some great ones so far!

-theAdmin

  Tweet