- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 0
I had a paper recently submitted so I was wondering how long it usually takes to get comments back from reviewers and then to either get accepted or rejected?
How long does it take for a paper to be reviewed and accepted/rejected?
- Thread starter sixpence
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 9
Depends on how long/good the paper is and how fast the reviewer is. Usually takes between a week and a year.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,454
- Reaction score
- 30
Varies a lot but typically you find out in about 2weeks whether it got sent to reviewers or just rejected (depending on the timing of their review board, I think most meet at least once a month), then reviewers have somewhere between 2-8weeks or so.
Quickest turn around I've had is 2days (Science editors board meets on like Fri? or something) and I just had a paper published that was originally submitted 3years ago, it was with a collaborator's lab so I had forgotten about it, lol.
Quickest turn around I've had is 2days (Science editors board meets on like Fri? or something) and I just had a paper published that was originally submitted 3years ago, it was with a collaborator's lab so I had forgotten about it, lol.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 5
Comments back from reviewers: at least a month, usually more
Editorial decision: at least a month, usually more
Oh and the first revision can get sent back to the same or different reviewers, depending on the journal.
Most journals have "deadlines" for the length of time you have to review a paper, return the first revision, and all other stages of the process. I think these are usually ignored by the reviewers.
Some journals have a status page you can check to see where your paper is in the process.
It's so variable depending on the journal but I think a good estimate if you do everything as quick as you can is 3 - 6 months. I think top journals move 'em a little faster, but not sure.
Editorial decision: at least a month, usually more
Oh and the first revision can get sent back to the same or different reviewers, depending on the journal.
Most journals have "deadlines" for the length of time you have to review a paper, return the first revision, and all other stages of the process. I think these are usually ignored by the reviewers.
Some journals have a status page you can check to see where your paper is in the process.
It's so variable depending on the journal but I think a good estimate if you do everything as quick as you can is 3 - 6 months. I think top journals move 'em a little faster, but not sure.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 0
Ahh I hate waiting haha. THe impact factor of this journal is only a little over 2 and the length is pretty short.
Does anyone know the percentage of papers rejected? I was working in a very respectable lab and the PI has over 250 papers published. Hopefully that means I have a decent chance that mine will be published!
Does anyone know the percentage of papers rejected? I was working in a very respectable lab and the PI has over 250 papers published. Hopefully that means I have a decent chance that mine will be published!
- Joined
- May 21, 2009
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
I was part of the staff for a journal that was published quarterly. Keep in mind this was more a humanities type of journal, but the idea is the same.
1) We receive a manuscript, quickly look it over (make sure it's not totally crazy), enter it into an online system then look for reviewers. We usually emailed 8-10 people per manuscript who study something similar, with the goal of having three people agree to review. That step can take anywhere from a couple of days to over a month, depending on how interested people are in the manuscript and how busy people are teaching classes.
2) Then we send out the manuscript and give reviewers a month to get back to us with comments. This is usually the slowest part. Most people will take at least the entire month. After a month there are usually people we still won't have heard from, so we start sending them emails to remind them. Sometimes the reviews will back out and we have to find someone else, sometimes they will quickly send their review and sometimes we just don't hear anything. Like I said, this is the slowest step.
3) When we finally have all the reviews in the editor will make a decision- accept it how it is; accept it with minor changes; ask you to use the reviewer comments and resubmit; reject it. Lots of people get asked to revise and resubmit. Very rarely did we get a first submit that was accepted. We would get hundreds of manuscripts per year and we only publish 5-6 per journal.
4) If you are invited to resubmit the process starts again (although we try to use the same reviewers). If you are accepted we give you something like a month to submit your final draft. Since we get so many manuscripts we often had the next few journals already set, so your article might not get publish for another 6-10 months.
Basically, don't wait on the edge of your seat, you'll be there for a while. Generally, anything under 2 months is insanely fast. We considered ourselves to have pretty quick turnaround and anything around 3-5 months was pretty standard. Again, the journal I worked for wasn't hard science based, but I imagine the process is pretty similar across the board.
Hope this helps.
1) We receive a manuscript, quickly look it over (make sure it's not totally crazy), enter it into an online system then look for reviewers. We usually emailed 8-10 people per manuscript who study something similar, with the goal of having three people agree to review. That step can take anywhere from a couple of days to over a month, depending on how interested people are in the manuscript and how busy people are teaching classes.
2) Then we send out the manuscript and give reviewers a month to get back to us with comments. This is usually the slowest part. Most people will take at least the entire month. After a month there are usually people we still won't have heard from, so we start sending them emails to remind them. Sometimes the reviews will back out and we have to find someone else, sometimes they will quickly send their review and sometimes we just don't hear anything. Like I said, this is the slowest step.
3) When we finally have all the reviews in the editor will make a decision- accept it how it is; accept it with minor changes; ask you to use the reviewer comments and resubmit; reject it. Lots of people get asked to revise and resubmit. Very rarely did we get a first submit that was accepted. We would get hundreds of manuscripts per year and we only publish 5-6 per journal.
4) If you are invited to resubmit the process starts again (although we try to use the same reviewers). If you are accepted we give you something like a month to submit your final draft. Since we get so many manuscripts we often had the next few journals already set, so your article might not get publish for another 6-10 months.
Basically, don't wait on the edge of your seat, you'll be there for a while. Generally, anything under 2 months is insanely fast. We considered ourselves to have pretty quick turnaround and anything around 3-5 months was pretty standard. Again, the journal I worked for wasn't hard science based, but I imagine the process is pretty similar across the board.
Hope this helps.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,032
- Reaction score
- 66
I would narrow the gap to more like 4 weeks/a month, to 6-8 months for most articles. There are a bunch of variables in the equation though. Revisions have been mentioned. If the article is rejected from the first place, when you submit it to another journal, you're back in square 1 again, even though X amount of time had passed. I had an article that had been accepted, but wasn't published for another 2 months.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
It depends.
If you are required to do revisions, you have to take into account the time required for that, like how quickly you can work on them.
Lots of waiting.
several months.
If you have to resubmit to a new journal, the process starts over again.
If you are required to do revisions, you have to take into account the time required for that, like how quickly you can work on them.
Lots of waiting.
several months.
If you have to resubmit to a new journal, the process starts over again.
