3 edited body
source | link

There are two important perspectives here.

Author's point of view. Journals have standards of various levels, and 'topics of interest' can change in important detail over time from one chief editor to the next.

I think it is entirely reasonable for an author to submit to the highest-level journal that seems realistic. In my field, rejection will usually be very quick if the paper is far below standard for the journal.

If an associate editor feels the paper has some merit, then it will go to review. If reviews are positive it may be accepted, provisionally accepted pending suggested/required revisions, or rejected (due to the editor's taste or too high a backlog of 'worthy' papers). If the paper is rejected, one can hope that useful suggestions for improvement will be included. Also if reviews are unenthusiastic, the paper will be rejected. Then it is up to the author to get another idea or to re-submit elsewhere, possibly with some modifications.

I have served on publications committees of a couple of societies publishing journals in my field. Serious efforts have been made to speed up the review process. Some major journals now make final decisions on 75% of papers within six months. I detect no deliberate attempt to use delay as a penalty for successive submissions.

I see no reason an author should take one or two rejections as a sign to abandon the essence of a paper. However, feedback should be used to prompt revisions, and after a couple of strategic downgrades in the prestige of journals submitted to, perhaps it is best for an author to move on to other work. These days there are dozens of predatory 'journals' that will accept almost anything, and self-respecting authors will protect their reputations by avoiding them like the plague they are.

Reviewer's point of view. Reviewers should set reasonable, but generous, limits on the number of papers they agree to review and try to respond quickly (the task will not get easier if delayed).

My view is that the only proper response to a request to review a paper for which one has previously recommended rejection is to refuse immediately to review it again, saying why. That will take almost none of the reviewer's time. Thus the reviewer can spend precious time giving a helpful review of the the next relevant paper to come along.

The author deserves an unbiased, fresh review process. However tempting it may be be to believe in one's preeminence, few reviewers are uniquely qualified to pass judgment on any one paper.

There are two important perspectives here.

Author's point of view. Journals have standards of various levels, and 'topics of interest' can change in important detail over time from one chief editor to the next.

I think it is entirely reasonable for an author to submit to the highest-level journal that seems realistic. In my field, rejection will usually be very quick if the paper is far below standard for the journal.

If an associate editor feels the paper has some merit, then it will go to review. If reviews are positive it may be accepted, provisionally accepted pending suggested/required revisions, or rejected (due to the editor's taste or too high a backlog of 'worthy' papers). If the paper is rejected, one can hope that useful suggestions for improvement will be included. Also if reviews are unenthusiastic, the paper will be rejected. Then it is up to the author to get another idea or to re-submit elsewhere, possibly with some modifications.

I have served on publications committees of a couple of societies publishing journals in my field. Serious efforts have been made to speed up the review process. Some major journals now make final decisions on 75% of papers within six months. I detect no deliberate attempt to use delay as a penalty for successive submissions.

I see no reason an author should take one or two rejections as a sign to abandon the essence of a paper. However, feedback should be used to prompt revisions, and after a couple of strategic downgrades in the prestige of journals submitted to, perhaps it is best for an author to move on to other work. These days there are dozens of predatory 'journals' that will accept almost anything, and self-respecting authors will protect their reputations by avoiding them like the plague they are.

Reviewer's point of view. Reviewers should set reasonable, but generous, limits on the number of papers they agree to review and try to respond quickly (the task will not get easier if delayed).

My view is that the only proper response to a request to review a paper for which one has previously recommended rejection is to refuse immediately to review it again, saying why. That will take almost none of the reviewer's time. Thus the reviewer can spend precious time giving a helpful review of the the next relevant paper to come along.

The author deserves an unbiased, fresh review process. However tempting it may be be believe in one's preeminence, few reviewers are uniquely qualified to pass judgment on any one paper.

There are two important perspectives here.

Author's point of view. Journals have standards of various levels, and 'topics of interest' can change in important detail over time from one chief editor to the next.

I think it is entirely reasonable for an author to submit to the highest-level journal that seems realistic. In my field, rejection will usually be very quick if the paper is far below standard for the journal.

If an associate editor feels the paper has some merit, then it will go to review. If reviews are positive it may be accepted, provisionally accepted pending suggested/required revisions, or rejected (due to the editor's taste or too high a backlog of 'worthy' papers). If the paper is rejected, one can hope that useful suggestions for improvement will be included. Also if reviews are unenthusiastic, the paper will be rejected. Then it is up to the author to get another idea or to re-submit elsewhere, possibly with some modifications.

I have served on publications committees of a couple of societies publishing journals in my field. Serious efforts have been made to speed up the review process. Some major journals now make final decisions on 75% of papers within six months. I detect no deliberate attempt to use delay as a penalty for successive submissions.

I see no reason an author should take one or two rejections as a sign to abandon the essence of a paper. However, feedback should be used to prompt revisions, and after a couple of strategic downgrades in the prestige of journals submitted to, perhaps it is best for an author to move on to other work. These days there are dozens of predatory 'journals' that will accept almost anything, and self-respecting authors will protect their reputations by avoiding them like the plague they are.

Reviewer's point of view. Reviewers should set reasonable, but generous, limits on the number of papers they agree to review and try to respond quickly (the task will not get easier if delayed).

My view is that the only proper response to a request to review a paper for which one has previously recommended rejection is to refuse immediately to review it again, saying why. That will take almost none of the reviewer's time. Thus the reviewer can spend precious time giving a helpful review of the the next relevant paper to come along.

The author deserves an unbiased, fresh review process. However tempting it may be to believe in one's preeminence, few reviewers are uniquely qualified to pass judgment on any one paper.

2 added 27 characters in body
source | link

There are two important perspectives here.

Author's point of view. Journals have standards of various levels, and these 'topics of interest' can change in important detail over time from one chief editor to the next.

I think it is entirely reasonable for an author to submit to the highest-level journal that seems realistic. In my field, rejection will usually be very quick if the paper is far below standard for the journal.

If an associate editor feels the paper has some merit, then it will go to review. If reviews are positive it may be accepted, provisionally accepted pending suggested/required revisions, or rejected (due to the editor's taste or too high a backlog of 'worthy' papers). If the paper is rejected, one can hope that useful suggestions for improvement will be included. Also if reviews are unenthusiastic, the paper will be rejected. Then it is up to the author to get another idea or to re-submit elsewhere, possibly with some modifications.

I have served on publications committees of a couple of societies publishing journals in my field. Serious efforts have been made to speed up the review process. Some major journals now make final decisions on 75% of papers within six months. I detect no deliberate attempt to makeuse delay as a penalty for successive submissions.

I see no reason an author should take one or two rejections as a sign to abandon the essence of a paper. However, feedback should be used to prompt revisions, and after a couple of strategic downgrades in the prestige of journals submitted to, perhaps it is best for an author to move on to other work. These days there are dozens of predatory 'journals' that will accept almost anything, and self-respecting authors will protect their reputations by avoiding them like the plague they are.

Reviewer's point of view. Reviewers should set reasonable, but generous, limits on the number of papers they agree to review and try to respond quickly (the task will not get easier if delayed).

My view is that the only proper response to a request to review a paper for which one has previously recommended rejection is to refuse immediately to review it again, saying why. That will take almost none of the reviewer's time. Thus the reviewer can spend precious time giving a helpful review of the the next relevant paper to come along.

The author deserves an unbiased, fresh review process. However tempting it may be be believe in one's preeminence, few reviewers are uniquely qualified to pass judgment on any one paper.

There are two important perspectives here.

Author's point of view. Journals have standards of various levels, and these can change in important detail over time from one chief editor to the next.

I think it is entirely reasonable for an author to submit to the highest-level journal that seems realistic. In my field, rejection will usually be very quick if the paper is far below standard for the journal.

If an associate editor feels the paper has some merit, then it will go to review. If reviews are positive it may be accepted, provisionally accepted pending suggested/required revisions, or rejected (due to the editor's taste or too high a backlog of 'worthy' papers). If the paper is rejected, one can hope that useful suggestions for improvement will be included. Also if reviews are unenthusiastic, the paper will be rejected. Then it is up to the author to get another idea or to re-submit elsewhere, possibly with some modifications.

I have served on publications committees of a couple of societies publishing journals in my field. Serious efforts have been made to speed up the review process. Some major journals now make final decisions on 75% of papers within six months. I detect no attempt to make delay a penalty for successive submissions.

I see no reason an author should take one or two rejections as a sign to abandon the essence of a paper. However, feedback should be used to prompt revisions, and after a couple of strategic downgrades in the prestige of journals submitted to, perhaps it is best for an author to move on to other work. These days there are dozens of predatory 'journals' that will accept almost anything, and self-respecting authors will protect their reputations by avoiding them like the plague they are.

Reviewer's point of view. Reviewers should set reasonable, but generous, limits on the number of papers they agree to review and try to respond quickly (the task will not get easier if delayed).

My view is that the only proper response to a request to review a paper for which one has previously recommended rejection is to refuse immediately to review it again, saying why. That will take almost none of the reviewer's time. Thus the reviewer can spend precious time giving a helpful review of the the next relevant paper to come along.

The author deserves an unbiased, fresh review process. However tempting it may be be believe in one's preeminence, few reviewers are uniquely qualified to pass judgment on any one paper.

There are two important perspectives here.

Author's point of view. Journals have standards of various levels, and 'topics of interest' can change in important detail over time from one chief editor to the next.

I think it is entirely reasonable for an author to submit to the highest-level journal that seems realistic. In my field, rejection will usually be very quick if the paper is far below standard for the journal.

If an associate editor feels the paper has some merit, then it will go to review. If reviews are positive it may be accepted, provisionally accepted pending suggested/required revisions, or rejected (due to the editor's taste or too high a backlog of 'worthy' papers). If the paper is rejected, one can hope that useful suggestions for improvement will be included. Also if reviews are unenthusiastic, the paper will be rejected. Then it is up to the author to get another idea or to re-submit elsewhere, possibly with some modifications.

I have served on publications committees of a couple of societies publishing journals in my field. Serious efforts have been made to speed up the review process. Some major journals now make final decisions on 75% of papers within six months. I detect no deliberate attempt to use delay as a penalty for successive submissions.

I see no reason an author should take one or two rejections as a sign to abandon the essence of a paper. However, feedback should be used to prompt revisions, and after a couple of strategic downgrades in the prestige of journals submitted to, perhaps it is best for an author to move on to other work. These days there are dozens of predatory 'journals' that will accept almost anything, and self-respecting authors will protect their reputations by avoiding them like the plague they are.

Reviewer's point of view. Reviewers should set reasonable, but generous, limits on the number of papers they agree to review and try to respond quickly (the task will not get easier if delayed).

My view is that the only proper response to a request to review a paper for which one has previously recommended rejection is to refuse immediately to review it again, saying why. That will take almost none of the reviewer's time. Thus the reviewer can spend precious time giving a helpful review of the the next relevant paper to come along.

The author deserves an unbiased, fresh review process. However tempting it may be be believe in one's preeminence, few reviewers are uniquely qualified to pass judgment on any one paper.

1
source | link

There are two important perspectives here.

Author's point of view. Journals have standards of various levels, and these can change in important detail over time from one chief editor to the next.

I think it is entirely reasonable for an author to submit to the highest-level journal that seems realistic. In my field, rejection will usually be very quick if the paper is far below standard for the journal.

If an associate editor feels the paper has some merit, then it will go to review. If reviews are positive it may be accepted, provisionally accepted pending suggested/required revisions, or rejected (due to the editor's taste or too high a backlog of 'worthy' papers). If the paper is rejected, one can hope that useful suggestions for improvement will be included. Also if reviews are unenthusiastic, the paper will be rejected. Then it is up to the author to get another idea or to re-submit elsewhere, possibly with some modifications.

I have served on publications committees of a couple of societies publishing journals in my field. Serious efforts have been made to speed up the review process. Some major journals now make final decisions on 75% of papers within six months. I detect no attempt to make delay a penalty for successive submissions.

I see no reason an author should take one or two rejections as a sign to abandon the essence of a paper. However, feedback should be used to prompt revisions, and after a couple of strategic downgrades in the prestige of journals submitted to, perhaps it is best for an author to move on to other work. These days there are dozens of predatory 'journals' that will accept almost anything, and self-respecting authors will protect their reputations by avoiding them like the plague they are.

Reviewer's point of view. Reviewers should set reasonable, but generous, limits on the number of papers they agree to review and try to respond quickly (the task will not get easier if delayed).

My view is that the only proper response to a request to review a paper for which one has previously recommended rejection is to refuse immediately to review it again, saying why. That will take almost none of the reviewer's time. Thus the reviewer can spend precious time giving a helpful review of the the next relevant paper to come along.

The author deserves an unbiased, fresh review process. However tempting it may be be believe in one's preeminence, few reviewers are uniquely qualified to pass judgment on any one paper.