- Joined
- Oct 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Last edited:
Journal response time
- Thread starter psychhopeful13
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,645
- Reaction score
- 6,388
It really, really varies. Generally, I might politely follow up after 60-75 days. And no a longer response time doesn't mean... anything, reliably, except that you haven't been desk rejected.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2014
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 211
A few months. Most recently I submitted to a journal that had a relatively quick turn around, and they got back to me exactly 4 months later.
Varies widely by journal. Psychology journals are notoriously slow (actually behavioral sciences in general).
2 months isn't abnormal by any means. 3 months was usually the cutoff we used where we could contact the editor if it went past that. I think I've only had something go significantly past that one time and that one ended up taking almost 6 months (they had troubles finding an appropriate reviewer as it was somewhat outside the scope of what they usually publish). I'd say most of the time I expect reviews to come in somewhere between 2-3 months and am pleased if they come back sooner.
As others have said, this means nothing beyond the fact that you haven't been desk rejected (which psychology also doesn't do nearly as much as it should IMO). Its a slow process. Usually takes the editor up to a couple weeks to kick it to the associate editor, who can take anywhere from a few days to months on end to get it to reviewers, who are often given 1-2 months to actually write the review. Depending on whether they have reached the "Don't have to give a crap what anyone thinks anymore" reputation status they may wait til the first or second reminder past the due date before they actually get around to looking at it...and then it goes back through the system in reverse.
All of that is to say - don't expect anything to move quickly
If you want a fast response - submit to JAMA. One of my advisors loved a story of submitting a brief article, getting reviews back in 2 week (with revisions due in 1 week), it was accepted that day, online a week later and in print within 2 months of the day of submission.
In stark contrast...that paper I told you about with the 6 month review time did not come out until close to the 2-year mark following the date we first submitted.
2 months isn't abnormal by any means. 3 months was usually the cutoff we used where we could contact the editor if it went past that. I think I've only had something go significantly past that one time and that one ended up taking almost 6 months (they had troubles finding an appropriate reviewer as it was somewhat outside the scope of what they usually publish). I'd say most of the time I expect reviews to come in somewhere between 2-3 months and am pleased if they come back sooner.
As others have said, this means nothing beyond the fact that you haven't been desk rejected (which psychology also doesn't do nearly as much as it should IMO). Its a slow process. Usually takes the editor up to a couple weeks to kick it to the associate editor, who can take anywhere from a few days to months on end to get it to reviewers, who are often given 1-2 months to actually write the review. Depending on whether they have reached the "Don't have to give a crap what anyone thinks anymore" reputation status they may wait til the first or second reminder past the due date before they actually get around to looking at it...and then it goes back through the system in reverse.
All of that is to say - don't expect anything to move quickly
If you want a fast response - submit to JAMA. One of my advisors loved a story of submitting a brief article, getting reviews back in 2 week (with revisions due in 1 week), it was accepted that day, online a week later and in print within 2 months of the day of submission.In stark contrast...that paper I told you about with the 6 month review time did not come out until close to the 2-year mark following the date we first submitted.
Similar threads
