0

I have submitted a paper to an Economics journal in September 2019. It was assigned to reviewers in October of the same year. When being assigned, I was told by the journal office, that the review process might take between three to four months. I have sent an email to the journal office to which they have replied to me today saying that, one of the reviewers has already given his/her reviews, but the journal is still waiting for the second reviewer to submit his/her reviews? They told me that the concerned reviewer has become unresponsice and they will help to expediate the process.

Furthermore, journal office mentioned that they will keep monitoring the situation nd the editor will proceed to a decision as quickly as possible once sufficient reviews have been received.

Does the fact that one of the reviewers who has already provided his/her reviews bears any significance in terms of revision, acceptance or rejection?

And what is the significance that one of the reviewers have been unresponsive?

Thanks.

4
  • 6
    Does this answer your question? What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? – GoodDeeds Jun 22 '20 at 20:08
  • If a reviewer becomes unresponsive, what does the journal do in that case? Look for another reviewer? – user3571389 Jun 22 '20 at 20:20
  • "If a reviewer becomes unresponsive, what does the journal do in that case? Look for another reviewer?" - if they can't be contacted, yes (unless the other reviews are sufficient to make a decision). Why would you expect anything else? – Bryan Krause Jun 22 '20 at 20:33
  • So two reviewers was assigned to the paper. Given the fact that only reviewer has submitted his/her report, that doesn't signal anything about the acceptance, rejection or revision of the journal, right? Also, there has been no response from the editor(s) as well. – user3571389 Jun 22 '20 at 20:46
1

Closely related: What happens if a reviewer withdraws himself from peer review process?

If the reviewer is unresponsive, they effectively withdraw. Again the same basic options are available to the editor: they can find another reviewer, or they can make a decision based on the single review they've received. When you get the decision you'll be able to tell which option they took.

Does the fact that one of the reviewers who has already provided his/her reviews bears any significance in terms of revision, acceptance or rejection?

I suppose the fact the reviewer went unresponsive indicates that your manuscript is not so groundbreaking that people are actively excited to review your manuscript. But even drawing this conclusion is dangerous - the reviewer could simply have fallen ill, for example - so the brief answer is "no". It's simply something too circumstantial to draw conclusions about.

On the bright side, having one review completed is progress, so you should expect to receive a decision in a shorter time than if you withdraw and submit the manuscript at another journal.

2
  • Is it a telltale sign that the review or report recived by one reviewer means that the concerned reviewer may have rejected the paper/asked for revision? – user3571389 Jun 23 '20 at 10:54
  • 1
    @user3571389 I think all it says is that the already-received review isn't enough to make a decision on. That doesn't mean much, however. It's rare for a single review to be so bad that a manuscript is rejected without waiting for other reviews. The other case - where the single review is so good the manuscript is accepted - probably very rarely happens. – Allure Jun 23 '20 at 11:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.