About 10 months ago, I submitted one little article to a journal and six months ago I received the acceptance. I uploaded the latex file and since then I didn't hear anything about it being published.  Today it appeared a new issue of the journal so I must wait at least another 3 months.  This will be my first published article and I started to become a little nervous about it.  Can you tell me if something happened, like editor's changing his mind or delaying because they consider it less valuable than other submissions?  Should I contact my editor about this?
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.
90924
I  would be happy to have a short comment by somebody on following simple situation: I submitted my paper in beginning of January. In the end or January the status changed from the administration (Editor) to "under review". After that, this has not changed, it is still "under review". Is this normal. My field is history.   The journal doesn't indicate the review-times in the pages, but from the same publishing house's pages I have seen other journals of the same field and noted that the time may vary from 3-4 months up to one year.  I have decided that I will patiently wait, but I am starting to feel insecure about if they have forgotten to push the status-button. So, it would be nice just to know, does this sounds normal? Another article a couple of years ago in another journal didn't take that long.
28016
In my blog I publish articles with date below under it.  My questions are:   Using dates will have positive impact or negative impact? After few years of publishing the post, since my post age is old will it remain in same position of search results or it will go down? Finally, should I use published dates or not?
30454
I have recently submitted a paper to arXiv, but the arXiv moderators put my paper in status "on hold", because they have to make a decision on the right classification for the paper.   To those who have experienced a similar situation, how long did it take before they made a decision and published the paper on the arXiv? I just want to have an idea of how long I will have to wait.
106591
A few months ago, I submitted a manuscript. After the reviews were completed I received a rejection decision from the Associate Editor (AE). The rejection was based on the basis of a single rejection recommendation by one of the four reviewers. The journal has very high standards so this is not uncommon. However, the reason for the rejection appears really awkward to me. The reviewer wrote in his/her report that another paper with a similar idea was submitted (not published) in another journal. He/she wrote that the submission date of the other paper was earlier than mine so the originality of my idea is questionable. The AE agreed with this report and adopted this argument in the rejection letter.    I want to emphasize that my results were independently developed and I have no knowledge whatsoever of the other manuscript which according to the reports that were attached has not been published yet. The whole situation seems rather awkward and I am not sure how to react. Of course the reviewer's identity is not known to me, but I find it hard to believe that he/she is not an author or somehow related to the author of the other paper.   Furthermore, I feel really offended by these comments  as it appears to me that I am implicitly being accused of plagiarism. I am considering writing a letter to the Editor in Chief. I do not want to change the decision, but I would like to make clear that my results were independently obtained. Also, what are your thoughts on how should I proceed with my manuscript?
43050
I am presenting a paper at a computer science conference.  The paper I submitted to the conference mentioned future work that would significantly enhance the utility of the method.  This work was work that was always planned to be part of the same "project" as the work in the paper, indeed the conference paper is presented as a part way step towards doing X, and the future work is what takes it all the way.  The extension was quite involved (and not quite complete when I submitted the paper for review). They day before I left for the conference that work was "completed", in that a journal article about it was submitted for review.  Now when I present at the conference, in the conclusion I want to mention the future work&nbsp;&ndash; at least to the extent that it was described in the conference paper. Should I go into more detail? Should I even mention that "This work is now complete, and is under review for publication"?
50185
I did my PhD four years back. I was funded from my home country and I have done all the work. I started writing papers before submitting my thesis.  I am sending my supervisor drafts every year until now. Altogether I have now done 32 drafts. Since last year alone, I have rewritten my paper 12 times but he still is not happy to submit it and not willing to make any changes by himself. He is even not letting me to show it to the reviewers.  My supervisor is a lecturer and I was his first PhD student. I acquired the opinion of two professors (one of them is my 2nd supervisor and is a co-author) recently about the quaility of paper and they recommended to send it to a good journal (impact factor of 10 and above). After many years of struggle my supervisor wished to publish it in a journal with an impact factor less than 1. Above all he is not willing to pay publication costs and he is not allowing me to try for good journal. I am the one who did all the work, who paid for work, who wrote paper and who is paying for publication costs and i am not allowed to try any good journal.  One thing about his recomened changes: He did not ask repeating any experiments, redoing any analysis or revisiting any conclusions. It’s only text style that is being changed over last four years.  I contacted the university services and they told me that I don’t qualify for university help as they only cover two years post PhD duration.   What can I do now? Can I publish my work without him as co author. Can I just acknowlege him for hosting me and remove his name from the author list?
35698
I am asking this question because I've always had the impression that manuscripts submitted to a journal in my field (theoretical linguistics) take an insanely long time to get published, and sometimes I get the impression that this is because, most of the time, nobody other than the author cares about getting things done within a reasonable amount of time. Some examples from personal experience follow.   For the last paper I submitted before getting my PhD, I had to wait nine months from the submission date to get reviews back from the referees. Last week I got a review request from a journal I had never reviewed for previously. The review deadline is March 15 (almost four months). In early October, I submitted a manuscript to a journal that I know asks reviewers to return reviews within 6 weeks. I checked the status of the manuscript online and it still says "with editor". Earlier this year, I was about to start writing a review when my wife went into labor. By the time we came back from the hospital, I had forgotten about the review, so I missed the deadline. The editor didn't contact me to ask about the review until two months after the deadline. Late in 2013, I was asked to write a survey chapter for a handbook. The expected publication date of the handbook is summer 2016.   All of this is not me being unlucky with editors and referees. In private conversations through the years, many colleagues have confirmed that it is virtually unheard of to get reviews back within 3 months of submission; 5 or 6 months seems to be a good average, but in some cases it can take longer (see my first point above). In general, everybody seems to have accepted that the submission-to-printed-journal process is going to take a bare minimum of one year, and that's assuming that the manuscript is accepted without revisions. If revisions are required, two years is not out of the question. Also, it's not like our papers are ridiculously long. I've reviewed about 100 papers so far, and the longest one was about 50 single-space pages; 30-35 single-spaced pages is closer to average.  I remember that, when I was a postdoc, my astrophysics housemate mentioned that in his field the entire submission-to-printed-journal process took only three or four months. I really can't see a good reason why theoretical linguistics shouldn't operate on similar timeframes, other than the fact that everybody seems to have grown used to things taking way longer than they really need to. What are the wait times in other fields? How do you manage to get things done quickly?
77690
What's the best way to make corrections to a published paper? Should I amend the original paper and mention in a footnote (or similar) what was changed and why or prepare a completely separate document and put that on my website/append it to the original paper?  I'm not so much worried about how to get it to the publishers that handle the paper, but rather about how to go about it. I would especially like to hear from people who have done something like that or know someone who did.
101672
I've recently submitted three papers to the same top journal over a period of two weeks. Can this fact alone impact on the chances of any of the papers being accepted? There is no overlap of content or dependencies among the papers, but I'm a bit worried that it may look odd from the editor's perspective and raise doubts on my work.
86569
I think the title asks the question, but once again in more words:  Suppose you submit a paper to a journal and it is accepted by the journal.  By this I mean that the journal tells you that they have decided to publish your paper but you have not submitted or examined final proofs and -- especially -- not signed any paperwork allowing the journal to publish the paper.    I wonder how people feel about the ethics of deciding not to go through with the publication because you now feel that the paper could be published in a better journal?  This could happen either because of outside feedback you received in the meantime or because of feedback from the referees/editors of the journal itself.  (Added: In case this was not clear, I am assuming that upon submission one was seeking to publish in that journal conditional on not learning that one has "shot way too low".)    As far as I can see, it is absolutely legal to do this, so I am not interested in the legality of it, but rather its ethics and ramifications as an academic practice.  I also think I will get better answers if I do not telegraph my own feelings about this; I will be happy to document them later on.  Let me just say (i) this is a hypothetical question, but (ii) based on my own experience it is not ridiculous that it might be in the interest of the author to engage in this practice, if it happened to be kosher to all parties involved.  Note: I had previously asked a related question, at the time wondering whether it would be better asked separately.  Based on the way things have gone thus far, I now think it is better to post this followup question separately (not necessarily right away).
7956
I have submitted a paper to a journal 2 and a half months ago. Its status remains "With editor". From your experience, is this normal? If not, how should I deal with that?
22500
I had submitted my paper in an Elsevier journal one year back. Now, status update on the submission tracking says "Required reviews completed." However, for the last two weeks still there is no change in the status.  Should I ask the editor what is going on with my submission?
112527
Does anyone know a good online source for guidelines for shortening journal articles?  I've just finished a paper that I'm going to submit soon, but I think it is far too long.  Its current length is 30 journal pages.  (I know that because I've obsessively figured out what formatting would get me to have 1 word processed page for each journal page of a specific journal.)  This is in the humanities.  So I just want some good guidelines for things like "get rid of 'the fact that'."  The only such things that I found online were directed at people writing their college-admissions essay, which has to be very short, like 500 words.
50619
I'd just submitted a manuscript to  Journal on Mar. 1st, 2015. Right after 1 month, its status changed to Under Review. I just waited up to Jan. 2016 and send a letter to editor-in-chief to clear the status of the paper and any potential problem due to this delay. He did say this after that 10 months!:     you are right with your criticism. However your paper deals with   research topics, where only a few of roboticist are familiar with.   Hopefully we can get now the final required review. Sorry for the   inconvenience.   Now, 2 extra months are passed, yet the paper's status is still Under Review.  They should have considered responsibility regarding the case. They could easily announce us about their inability to find any interested reviewer for the manuscript, and we would find the other journal. I'm frustrated a little bit. As a matter of fact, I am reluctant to withdraw the submission as they have wasted my time, NOTICEABLY, over the last year. I wonder if they have completely neglected it.   Is there any way to handle this case, and ask them POLITELY and REASONABLY, leading to the finalization of this manuscript's situation?  Thanks  Edit: After 2 weeks from sending an email to the editor about the manuscript, he has not still replied.
4555
Call it stupidity or bad luck but I am guilty of submitting my research article to a journal which is listed in .  It is my first article and I don't have much experience publishing articles. I was searching for a top impact factor journal and found this one on Google and in excitement sent my article (word and pdf files) in this journal a few days ago, only to discover later that this might be a bogus journal.  Now I am worried about that what will happen to my article. What if they plagiarize my paper, or send it to another journal not giving me credit?   My question is that what should I do now? Should I send my article to a reputable journal now? What should be the process? What if it is flagged for fraud by that journal? What are my options?  Any help would be appreciated.
79144
We have witnessed (heard or read) about the birth of new academic journals many times. I have a vague idea how that happens:   A scientist or a group of scientists recognize the need for an academic journal in a specific field or a new scientific society considers to publish a journal,  they choose a group of experts as founders and/or chief editors,  they determine a scope and some basic rules for the journal,  they decide about the number of issues in each year and similar things,  they find a publisher or decide to publish the journal entirely on web, they establish a web site for the journal,  and then they announce the new journal in the related scientific community.    Did I miss any stage? But I suspect there are lots of discussions, negotiations, arrangements and cooperations behind the curtain, which public (the rest of the related scientific community) doesn't know. So my questions are:   What is a typical procedure for establishing a respectful academic journal?  Do financial considerations play a key role?  Should the founders be top experts (to some degree) in the field?  Is it important the new journal be affiliated to a scientific society or be published by a recognized publisher?  Why are some new journals published only on-line?   What are the influential factors for the success of a new journal?  How do the founders choose the editors?  What else should one consider for initiating a new academic journal?   Please share your partial answers too if you don't have all the answers.  Disclaimer: I am just curious and I don't intend to initiate any new journals in the near future.;)