I've submitted a paper in an ISI journal, i.e. in Taylor and Francis. The first submission date of the manuscript was 30-May-2014. We received the first revision result on 27-July-2014. Hopefully, the result of reviewing our paper was optimistic as the paper status was accept with change; we had only some minor comments. We submitted the answer of revision on 15 Aug. They didn't reply our revision yet.

So, I've sent an e-mail to the Editor in chief, but he didn't even reply our email. The handling editor identity is not available for us. What is your proposal in this case?

  • 1
    I would begin by writing several more times to the Editor-in-Chief. Be polite and brief, but emphasize the lack of contact. Commented Dec 21, 2014 at 20:36
  • How much should I wait to send the new email to him? I've sent an email to him 2 weeks ago. @PeteL.Clark
    – SAH
    Commented Dec 21, 2014 at 20:40
  • 3
    People have different ideas about email etiquette, but since a total lack of response is much worse, you shouldn't be afraid to write back after what you think is a reasonable amount of time. I would say a week or two after the first email is quite reasonable, so you should feel free to write back now. The interval between emails can decrease if you haven't gotten a response. If you get three emails from someone in one week, then the idea that you actually need to write back suddenly becomes much more clear. Commented Dec 21, 2014 at 20:44
  • thanks, actually I don't want to make them angry, but I am afraid that the faith of this paper get similar to my other paper in Elsevier journal. They've delayed in reviewing our other paper, so we sent them one email but after one year they replied and told us we sent your paper to 8 reviewers but they all didn't have knowledge to review it, so please introduce us 3 reviewers if u know [email protected]
    – SAH
    Commented Dec 21, 2014 at 20:54
  • 5
    Professionals don't get angry when people try to contact them. Or maybe they do, but they don't allow it to influence their judgment. As an author, you also can't live in fear of editorial boards: if things don't work out at one journal, you try again with another. That's the deal for them as well as you. Commented Dec 21, 2014 at 21:01

1 Answer 1


I agree that three months seem a little excessive for checking your revisions and providing a verdict. Since you received a minor revision on your first version, there does not seem to be any point of additional review so the manuscript must be with the editors still. Since the review process seems to have passed fairly quickly, there does not seem to be a general problem of a slow journal. Therefore, there can be a very reasonable explanation for the delay.

So, the only option forward is to contact the editors again. You should also check to see if there are more than only one "point of entrance" to the editors of the journal. If there are you may try another. Also, in case you have not done so, do check your junk mail folder to see if some form mail from the journal has been redirected by mistake. This occasionally happens if journals use such systems. Unfortunately there are no other routes to go other than to repeat the attempts to contact. A reasonable period is perhaps around three weeks between contact attempts.

  • 1
    I agree with all of this except the "three weeks between contact attempts". If the editorial board is completely nonresponsive, then either there is some technical issue which you should learn about sooner rather than later, or they are being absolutely unprofessional in not responding. When someone is evading you when they shouldn't be, you have the right to use increasing alacrity to get in contact with them. (If on the other hand they respond at all, even to say, "Sorry, we're looking into this", then three weeks seems quite reasonable.) Commented Dec 21, 2014 at 20:47
  • 2
    @Electricman: I find your last comment to be a bit inappropriate. Do you want an answer based on ethnic stereotypes?!? As in my comment above, I would assume that the editorial board consists of professionals who understand the basic ethics of the situation until proven wrong. Commented Dec 21, 2014 at 21:02
  • right, I got my answer from your other answer. I will assume he is professional and send him other [email protected]
    – SAH
    Commented Dec 21, 2014 at 21:05
  • @PeteL.Clark. Yes, non-responsiveness is difficult to handle. This is why it is important to see if there are alternative contacts. Unfortunately, the publishers of a journal is often quite anonymous but that would be another route to try but only at a very late stage. Commented Dec 21, 2014 at 21:09
  • 4
    @Electricman. Age, or any other characteristic, should not make much difference. Editors that do not perform will not stay for long in a good journal. this editor is there and is therefore likely doing the job well. At least that would be my starting assumption. Commented Dec 21, 2014 at 21:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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