I have submitted a manuscript to a journal. Five months after the initial submission, I have received the decision, which was a major revision. After submitting the revised manuscript three weeks later. It has been now six months since the submission of the revised manuscript. I understand that this can happen if one of the reviewers was changed but what if the reviewers were the same? Shouldn't the time spent in reviewing the revised manuscript be less that the one spent in the initial submission?


1 Answer 1


On average, your reasoning that a revised version should be quicker to be reviewed is sound. But the average duration is not what you experience, you get the time the actual persons which are reviewing your concrete paper take.

Maybe one of the reviewers is just more busy now? Maybe they became a parent? Maybe they just have less energy to spend on work now? Or more teaching obligations? An exciting new hobby?

Maybe your paper had some obvious flaws in the first round, but now with those out of the way, it is much trickier to figure out where there are some subtle issues left or not?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .