Do reviewers/editors receive a deadline for reviewing a paper? I wanted to know that whether reviewers/editors receive any kind of deadline for reviewing a manuscript for a journal or they are allowed to submit their reviews any time they wish since they are not paid for this service. If they do receive a deadline what is the average time the reviewers get for evaluating the following in journals owned by Elsevier, Springer, World Scientic, Taylor &amp; Francis etc.  Round 1 revision or first review of a paper Major Revision Minor Revision  I find that if a major revision is required then the authors receive a time  of 2 months for fixing it. For a minor revision the authors get a time of 1 month. What is the time given by the journal authorities to the Editors/Reviewers for checking a major revision and a minor revision? Can someone please let me know as one of my manuscript is in major and other in minor revision? Any help will be greatly appreciated.
12
What steps does a manuscript typically go through from submission to publication (or rejection) in a typical journal? How are these steps referred to, in particular by editorial systems, and how long do they each typically take?  Note that this question is about the typical situation and hence not about:   Journals with an atypical workflow, e.g. those that allow for an instantaneous reviewer–author interaction. Exceptional steps or rare occurrences such as withdrawal or .   This is a canonical question on this topic as per . Due to its nature, it is rather broad and not exemplary for a regular question on this site. Please feel free to improve this question.
9207
As an academic, one has to publish. Often, an article is drafted, and you need feedback of a colleague.  I see that quite often some perspective articles are often written by long-term collaborating pairs of authors.  What are some strategies people use to get feedback on their articles  (outside of immediate boss; and in the case that none of the friends in the field of work in the specific domain of the article, and one needs specific (not general) feedback)?   How do you approach a colleague to simply read your article. Or do you just mention it at a conference to the most suitable colleague - would you like to read an article and give me feedback? How do handle the co-authorship or acknowledgement? Do you establish the limits at the "approach time"?  What are some strategies to establish a "publishing" duos (buddies).
92734
I got an invitation to review a scientific paper from a journal. I accepted the offer to review but was wondering what benefits I might get if I review a paper? Can I write it in my CV as I will be applying for a Ph.D. position soon? Someone told me if I write it in my CV that I reviewed an article, no professor is gonna hire me thinking she already knows so many things and it will be hard to control her during the whole Ph.D.! Still, I accepted the offer out of excitement. Also, if my review is not up to the mark, is it like the editors will never give me anything to review again?
47645
I submitted my paper in IEEE Transcations of XXX and got a rejection. But the comments were really helpful and has helped me a lot in improving the paper. But, unfortunately, I cannot resubmit that paper to this same journal again and now I am looking for another journal.   I am writing a proper response again every comment and thinking to submit the response letter as part of the submission to the new journal. The basic idea is to let the reviewers know that this paper has been reviewed (by reviewers of another journal) and improvements has been made. Will it somehow improve the chances of acceptance. (as I am in the final stages of my PhD now)  What does the community say?
53853
I submitted a manuscript last year to an IEEE journal, and the paper was accepted for publication. I recently submitted a new manuscript to the same journal, but, this time, the paper was rejected, and I was told that I should submit to another journal since my paper was not within the journal's scope. The two papers both target similar applications. Furthermore, the second paper uses some work in the first paper, making substantial improvements at solving a much more difficult problem. Based on the reviewer's comments (and my own personal assessment), I do not believe that the work presented in the second paper was "incremental" in nature. Far from it. Two of the three reviewers gave positive reviews. The third reviewer, however, mentioned the "outside of journal's scope" issue and the associate editor and editor-in-chief both sided with the 3rd reviewer, and the paper was stopped dead in its tracks.  I'm scratching my head trying to come to terms with how in the world my first paper could be accepted by this journal, but the second paper focused on the same application space and achieving substantial improvements on a much more difficult problem (backed up with measured results) could be rejected. Any ideas?
25984
How to write a cover letter to journal when submitting a manuscript?   In the letter, it is expected that I propose 5 referees. Is this the only reason to write a cover letter? Will the cover letter be sent to the referees or only to Journal's staff? I feel reluctant to praise my contribution in the cover letter. The article should defend it itself. Is the praising important part of the cover letter? Is it required?
49441
I've read  about how some publishers (e.g., Springer) allows authors to submit to arXiv before journal submission, but they make authors wait for a year after acceptance to submit to arXiv.   My question is: Is it okay to submit to arXiv during the time when the paper is under consideration by the journal, for example after it has been "revised and resubmitted" but before final decision?
63916
While trying to select the journals I can submit my present work and future work, I realize the time between the date the authors send the article to the journal and when the revised article is submitted. Usually this is something between 6 months and more than 12 months.  Althought I am focusing on the Impact Factor (IF) to select journals, I think that 12 months to have a feedback that might include "add more variables analysis","this article will be more valuable if you test also model x,y and z", can have a huge impact on you work. It will make you stop what you are currently doing and possible spend up to 2 months making the changes. This might make a big mess on your work if you have deadlines to respect, however this happens to everyone in academia.  My question is, besides the IF journal based selection, how can we select a journal with enought quality with lower IF? What alternative criteria should one use to select the journal? Should we choose newly created Journals?
60730
There are plenty of journals and conferences in my research area. And there are things we could look up in advance, like impact factor, journal rank and so on.   But I would like to find a place where I could put my personal experience with the journal (or conference).   For instance, in Amazon the customers can review and criticize the books they read. In my country there is a site where you can complaint about any company that failed to satisfy the customer (a flight company, a magazine, a bank, etc).   One could argue that this would be unfair to the people that invest their time as editors or reviewers, but in my opinion it is a two-way relationship. Things like waiting one year without an answer from editors, poor review or evasive answers, is a disrespect to a research group who invests a lot of time as well.  So, is there a place where one could respectfully give a review and share their experience with a journal or conference?
60942
Is it just for me, or has the privilege to review new posts and late answers changed for everyone?  I recently started being more active in reviewing, but the rep requirement just shot up and I can not review anymore? The rep requirement has shot up to 500. Is this just for me, as a 'process", or has it been changed site wide?
63771
I'm new to the journal publishing world, and I can't but help wonder why the review process isn't completely blind?  By blind, I mean the reviewers don't know who performed the research or (more importantly) what university the research came from.  It seems that knowing the identity of the authors could influence the review such that the quality of the research no longer stands by itself. You should be able to read an article and, assuming that the experiment was conducted accurately and ethically, decide if it is a significant scientific advancement. Why are reviews not routinely double-blind?
4573
The title pretty much says it all - what's the typical delay with which Google Scholar indexes newly published articles? (Note I'm not talking about citations, but about the article showing up at all.)  Edit: the article in question went for over six months after being published (in a well-regarded Springer journal with its own Wikipedia page) without appearing on Google Scholar, until it received a citation, at which point it was added to Google Scholar almost immediately. One more motivation to write papers that get cited. :)  Edit 2: Another article in an even more mainstream journal took a little over seven weeks.
118951
I think I am in a very similar situation to  question, with the exception that my submission has been refused.  I do not want to start a flame, but to me, one of the two reviewers didn't took the necessary time to do a proper review.  The first reviewer made a thorough summary of the paper, and explained in an extremely clear way what were his/her doubts and which parts were not strong enough. The second one looked like a baby plugging his hears and screaming "".  He only attempted to make a point that resulted to be wrong since he was substantially criticizing how an algorithm works (Random Forests), even though it's empirically demonstrated to be effective.  Now, based on the constructive critiques of the first reviewer I refined the manuscript and attempting to submit to another journal. What I can't stand is the behaviour of the second reviewer.  Generally speaking, is the idea to respond to the editor about the bad (where bad is like in the linked question) review(er) a viable action, or should I just ignore all of this and go on?
123123
I just received the following comment from an Elsevier editor &quot;The manuscript does not reach the required quality standard of this journal.&quot;. To my mind say just that or nothing is pretty much the same considering the minimum requirements for data openness and transparency. there is already a good explanation of the submission process here:  However, as an automated process, is prone to flaws as well as to improvements. And does not explain in detail the received comment stated above. Any thoughts on deciphering the comment stated above are greatly appreciated. thank you EDIT: When I posted this question I forgot to add an essential and relevant fact to this conversion, which is: many and many scientific researchers don't have the opportunity to develop their research works in a team or even do it collaboratively. They have to rely on themselves to present their findings and defend their thesis. And everyone here is acquainted with the syndrome of  &quot;tunnel effect&quot; when writing. So having someone, that can give a small contribution to unlocking someone else research writing, I see as a welcoming behavior that can only benefit the scientific community at the individual level.
65941
Being a young researcher myself I received a comment from my colleague that some of the journals are paying reviewers for the reviewing process.  When I gave it a thought, it started to make more sense. In case of high quality, respected journal, an institution may consider itself privileged to have a reviewer of such journal and allow the reviewer to dedicate small proportion of his/her daily activities just on the reviewing process.  The reviewer being paid, has more obligations to provide thorough in depth review.  Does that hold true for some journals or is it just a myth?
61092
Suppose I write a paper and submit it to a conference. The paper gets some weak rejects and weak accepts and lots of criticism, but the conference is not that prestigious, so they accept it anyway.  Obviously, if I agree with the reviews, I will want to change the paper (which is in part what the reviews are for). But how far can I go with these changes? If the paper is computer science, for instance, I may easily run additional experiments, or slightly change the setup and re-run the existing experiments. If I submit the paper with these results, I will basically be publishing experiments that have not, in their current form, been peer-reviewed.  At what point do changes to a submitted paper post peer review become unacceptable?
50218
My paper is accepted in one of the Taylor and Francis journals and Today I figured out that I made a mistake in one row of one of my tables ( the minimum of one of variables in statistic analysis table is 0 in the paper but the actual value is 1). In fact, it does not affect the other parts of paper and the verification part.   Editor will provide the proofread of my paper in a week.  My question is, Will the editor give me a chance to edit the paper again? or he will change the grammatical problems his self?  And if I ask the editor to correct that row of paper, will he give the paper to reviewers again? I am worried that if I ask him to correct that mistake, he ask the reviewers to review my paper again. I need my paper to be published soon.