Some years ago a fair number of mathematics journals started to ask for one or more "quick opinions" by experts on a received manuscript before sending it out for peer-review (with the obvious goal of avoiding the hassle of peer-review for papers that clearly don't make the cut). In your experience, how long does it take on average to receive a quick opinion? Or, phrased differently, how long after submission can you usually deduce that your manuscript has survived quick opinions and is sent out for peer-review? This question is only within the scope of mathematics.

  • 2
    The answer is clearly journal dependent. I would guess that when the web submission portal says the status is "under review" that the paper has survived that cut. – Ethan Bolker Mar 18 at 14:59
  • 1
    The two quick rejections I've gotten took 1 month and slightly under 2 months, respectively. Small sample though. @EthanBolker, for both of these journals submission was by email, no web portals in sight. – Fedya Mar 18 at 23:41
  • 1
    In a third instance, the editor forwarded me a comment from a quick-opinionated expert after 2 months and a week. – Fedya Mar 18 at 23:48

I've been asked for "quick opinions" from a variety of good-to-best journals, and I try to meet the obvious goal of "quick...", if nothing else.

In some cases, I've easily seen the need for various sorts of revision, and immediately recommended that, with a promise that I'd look at it again later when it was more readable.

In some cases, I do also easily confess that, while I myself may not see the point or interest of a project, perhaps there is one... and, if nothing else, the author(s) perhaps should revise to make that clearer (if possible).

Anyway, usually I succeed in giving "quick responses" in a week or less, as one data point.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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