-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
hearing back from journals
Started by Member03326588
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
It took me six months to get revisions back from two reviewers. I sent in my revisions 2-3 weeks later but apparently the journal lost them. I resent the revisions and got an email the next day saying my revisions had been accepted. Should come out sometime early next year. The whole process took a loooong time but it was definitely worth it!
I've only submitted twice, but it didn't take six months for me. On average it took two or three.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It really depends (crappy answer, I know)--I've submitted maybe 10 times (not counting R&R's) and it's taken anywhere from 1 week (for a high IF, peer-reviewed journal--yeah, we all were shocked) to 5 months and change. I'd say cara's 2-3 month estimate is pretty much the central tendency, though, IME.
thanks, everyone! it's almost been four months for me - just making sure this is normal.
As others have noted, it depends on the journal. I'd only be concerned if your wait time radically exceeds what you've read online, if anything (i.e. if you're able to establish others' experience with wait time for this particular market). Wasn't there a website for this--comparing wait times for scholarly J responses? I could swear I'd heard about one.
As others have said, it varies. After 4-6 months, I'd probably send a quick email to the editor to see what the usual turnaround is, just for expectation's sake.
After 3 months I'd definitely contact the action editor to inquire about the manuscript status
I've rarely had an ms go through in under 3 months. Sometimes it's taken 2-3 weeks to just get two reviewers assigned.
Every journal I've ever submitted to has an online tracking system, either as part of the submission portal (manuscript central) or through APA's ms submission system (JBO). You can check the progress there, and see if it's stalled somewhere.
Journals vary widely in their review time, it depends where you go. Psychology journals are notorious for taking forever - its one of the reasons even our better journals have ridiculously low impact factors compared to the rest of science.
On the other hand, my co-advisor often tells a story about an article that went in (I think to psychopharmacology?) where the reviews came back in 2-3 weeks, they made changes in a week sent it back in and when they came back from lunch found out it had been accepted, it was online a week after that and in print (not press, PRINT) 2 weeks later. In contrast, we submitted to a public health journal a year or two ago that took almost 5 months to get back to us.
On the other hand, given some of the garbage you see that gets into the "top-tier" journals, there might be some upsides to a longer review process. I do think as a whole we tend to be far more rigorous than most fields (though not always on important issues).
On the other hand, my co-advisor often tells a story about an article that went in (I think to psychopharmacology?) where the reviews came back in 2-3 weeks, they made changes in a week sent it back in and when they came back from lunch found out it had been accepted, it was online a week after that and in print (not press, PRINT) 2 weeks later. In contrast, we submitted to a public health journal a year or two ago that took almost 5 months to get back to us.
On the other hand, given some of the garbage you see that gets into the "top-tier" journals, there might be some upsides to a longer review process. I do think as a whole we tend to be far more rigorous than most fields (though not always on important issues).
I just checked to see if a decision was reached for a paper I have submitted and it says
"Required Reviews Completed." I googled this and found some answers, but I am wondering how long it takes to actually hear from the Editor with a decision. I'm hoping for good news for the holidays/
"Required Reviews Completed." I googled this and found some answers, but I am wondering how long it takes to actually hear from the Editor with a decision. I'm hoping for good news for the holidays/
I've heard back anywhere from 1 day to 1 month. It depends on a lot of things: the agreement of the reviewers (if they disagree the editorial decision can be complicated), the quality of the reviews (a really poor review might mean a sub-editor has to look at the paper in detail again), the backlog of editor letters to be written, the work load of the editor (probably high at the moment if they're an academic). I'd say I generally wait a week from the time the online thing says the reviews are in to get the decision letter.
A lot of journals require that reviewers complete their assignment within 3-4 weeks. Finding reviewers is often where the problem lies. It can take more than a month to find 2-3 reviewers. Occasionally, you have an editor who takes a very long time to write the decision letter. Many reviewers are also regular contributors, so they understand the frustration associated with the long wait time. Reviewing is a good way to procrastinate when you want to get away from your own manuscripts for a while.
great reminder...but when your article is published "online first," how do you list on your CV? Just "in press" with anticipated volume and issue until print version comes out, or online publication date until print comes out?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I've seen both. There doesn't yet seem to be a set "standard" for this, at least from what I've seen. YMMV.
I've asked the other day how long it takes to hear a decision after the reviews have been completed. I got a response today, so it only took a few days...
Hope the news is good!
There is wide variability depending on the size of the journal, how staffed or understaffed it is, how frequently they publish issues, and how far in advance they select papers.
I've personally experienced a range from 1-6 months before getting reviews back. I'd say 2 months is average. After 3-4 months, following up (very tactfully) might be okay.
I've personally experienced a range from 1-6 months before getting reviews back. I'd say 2 months is average. After 3-4 months, following up (very tactfully) might be okay.
