![]() ![]() Writing Effective Revision Response Lettersīy Niklas Elmqvist, University of Maryland, College Park After that prepare a well written email to the editor if you do not find any reasons not to do so.My thoughts on writing effective response letters for journal revisions. If not you can check also previously published papers too see if your time is an outlier. To conclude: I would recommend spending again a reasonable time on the journals homepage to check if you find useful informations about the review time. Remember despite what I said there can always be reasons for an extended review time. It costs a lot less time to:Ī) re-read the whole manuscript, the reviewer already has understood the underlying theoryī) check if the suggestions have been implemented and if not to check if the author's defending arguments are reasonableīy no means I can imagine that a friendly written email about the status can be considered as spam or unethical pressure from the authors' side. The reviewers have read the manuscript before and documented critical paragraphs. ![]() This should give you a rough hint to your question.Īpart from that I personally consider a revision review of five months a quite critical time frame already in general. Usually I find in the author's guideline an average review time of the last three years or so. In all review request's I so far received I was also questioned if I could perform in timeframe XY. While the journal can never garantee a review time the editor can influence the time of review. It also might depend on the publisher's/journal's policies. For that I think it helps to do a fair amount of refereeing of one's own! Either that or cultivate a kind of inner peace that allows these kind of delays to, truly, not bother you. So I think it is much sounder strategy to "irritate" editors more rather than less often. However, I've witnessed many, many instances of authors who don't stand up for themselves and get victimized because of it. I have seen a lot of weird stuff happen over the years, but I've never seen that. I am feeling a bit jaded about the publication process right now - the quality of service that an author can expect from their submission experience varies so wildly as to seem like a fairness issue - but I am not so jaded to think that editors would allow their feelings of "irritation" at this (completely appropriate and expected) authorial behavior to influence their processing of the paper. Anyway, all you can do is ask.Īlternatively, would you be less inclined to enquire about the status because there is more to lose by irritating the editor? The flip side of this is that the editor will of course try to get the same referee to do the revisions, and the referee might have become busier in the meantime. In my experience, most referees do turn around minor revisions much faster than the original report. If it seems clear to you that refereeing the revised version should take much less time than the original version then sure, inquire (or "enquire," depending upon where in the anglophone world you are) sooner. Would you use the same rule of thumb that you use for initial submissions (e.g., 6 months or so)? Or is it reasonable to enquire about the status of the manuscript sooner? Of course what I think is an appropriate amount of time is a subjective judgment but informed by my own refereeing experiences. If the paper is 50 pages long and hard even for me to read, six months doesn't sound like enough time. For instance, if the paper is so short and easy that a qualified referee could do it one sitting then six months doesn't make any sense. It happens that I also use six months as a rough guideline (I am also a pure mathematician), but I will adjust in either direction if it seems reasonable. ![]() I don't think that is any fixed amount of time: in particular six months was suggested by one pure mathematician for papers in pure mathematics. When is it appropriate to enquire about the status of submission of revisions?Īt any stage of the publication process, you should feel free to check in whenever you think the referees / editors / typesetters / whoever have taken a reasonable amount of time to do the job, and you are beginning to worry that your paper is not being processed in a timely way.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |