In many journals of my field, upon acceptance of a manuscript for publication with minor revisions, the editor sets a deadline (4 weeks, in many journals) for submission for the revised manuscript.

While I usually resubmit these papers as fast as possible, I don't see the benefit for the editor to set a deadline. After all, once a paper is “almost accepted”, the authors are motivated enough to get it over the final line, aren't they?


Editing a journal is a non-trivial exercise, something which tends to drag on forever and requires lots of pushing of reviewers and authors to complete their tasks on time. It is time-consuming. Without deadlines, reviewers and authors will submit their work arbitrarily late, making it very difficult to get each issue out on time.

Authors may well be motivated to get over the final line, but when there are other things to do and the possibility of delaying one piece of work yet another day, then it is easy to delay that work.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    As a side note: in the journals I know, having your work accepted happens much earlier than determining what goes into which issues… (that, and some of the online journals actually don't have issues) – F'x Oct 23 '12 at 9:20
  • 2
    Without deadlines, progress doesn't. – Dave Clarke Oct 23 '12 at 10:29

Well, you want predictability in any manufacturing business, and printing press is that kind of manufacturing endeavour. Without deadlines for submissions, you won't have predictability in production.

| improve this answer | |

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.