2

I have two articles under review. In first round of review both got decision of "minor revision" within 3-4 months. I submitted the revised version 5 months ago but since then the status of both articles is "Under Review". I sent follow up emails but always I got response from Journal Manager that the article is under review and he sent an email to Associate Editor to prompt the review process.

During the course of time I submitted another two articles in IEEE journals; both were accepted and came online within 5-6 months of time. I am thinking to withdraw both under review articles form Springier and Elsevier and submit them to IEEE Journals.

Is it possible to shift review history of those articles to IEEE?
Will it be helpful for further accelerating the review process in IEEE if I submit both articles as new submission and provide review reports as a supporting documents?

  • 1
    Even if you withdraw and resubmit, it will take 5-6 months more to go through the proper channels of reviewing (supplementing the reviews is out of question). I do not know if it makes any sense at this point to go through that. – PsySp Mar 4 '17 at 16:50
2

At this point, it will not be fair to the reviewers that are currently refereeing your paper to receive a notification that the paper has been withdrawn.

Although you might think they are not doing their job properly, reviewers are busy persons and a lot of things can happen in the between. Given that 5 months is not that much time even fr a revision (at least depends on the fields. I my field of applied math/TCS it's OK) I would suggest to wait a little bit more but also bring the issue to the handling editor (which you already did).

On the other hand, even if you decide to withdraw, which is your right, I think that supplementing the current reviews to another journal is way off and I would strongly recommend against that. For start, the new journal would have no idea who is behind that reviews, not to mention the ethical levels of such action.

  • 1
    I am from computer science area and it's something unusual. I am reviewer of several journals i never took more than 3-4 weeks to submit my reviews. It's a volunteer work but reviewer should respect the author effort and time as well. – MBK Mar 4 '17 at 13:13
  • I agree that it seems much time (and probably is) but we do not know the reason for that (I had revisions ranging from 1 week, to 9 months!). I suggest to ask again the editor why the revisions take unusually more than the expected time. But retracting and resubmit supplying the other journal's reports is not advisable. – PsySp Mar 4 '17 at 13:15
  • as I mentioned in my question, always I get response to email by Journal Manager. I am not sure even if editor is seeing my emails. frankly speaking its really frustrating. I am PhD student and going to graduate soon. For next step in my career it can play a vital role. – MBK Mar 4 '17 at 14:07
  • 2
    @MBK we all have been there. What does your adviser says? One time I was reviewing a paper and I got a mail from the editor of the journal to hurry up because one of the authors was on the final stages of his/her PhD and an accepted manuscript would make a difference for that student. Maybe you can play the same card (but again I do not advise for that). – PsySp Mar 4 '17 at 16:44
-1

Five months for a review of the revision when the revisions are minor is way too long, IMO. Typically, the revisions are reviewed by the same people that reviewed the first submission. Given that, I suspect the Editor might be having difficulty in getting the reviewers to submit their reviews and might even be looking for alternate reviewers.

I don't recommend withdrawing the manuscripts from review right away. Instead, it may be better to write to the editor explaining your concerns and when he thinks the reviews will be done. You can check the previously published papers in this journal and see how long the submission-publication periods typically are. If your manuscripts are taking much longer than these periods, you could point that out to the editor as well.

  • 1
    5 months might be relatively lot (not way off, but again depends the case), if you take out the human factor. It might well be the case that something happened to one of the reviewers, or maybe one of the reviewers changed. In any case, it might be wise the author to try to clarify this, but to re-submit supplementing the reviews from another journal, is highly non-advisable. – PsySp Mar 4 '17 at 12:36
  • 1
    Five months for a review of the revision in my field (Mechanical Engineering) is way too long, even if human factors are accounted for. In my field, some of the top-tier journals request us to provide reviews of the revisions in about four weeks! I agree that the reviewers may have changed. But then, if the reviewers changed, I think that the Editor would/should have let the author know. – hpc Mar 4 '17 at 12:45
  • 1
    @hcp I think I agree with you that the editor should let the author know if something in the review process has changed. So we have 3 cases: 1) The reviewers have changed (unlikely but possible) 2) The reviewers are the same but one of the is unable for one reason or another to produce the report in due time 3) Somebody is lazy. In any case, it is good the author to politely try to clarify the issue pointing out that revision time is on average much shorter. But about the 2nd part of the OP's question, things are obvious – PsySp Mar 4 '17 at 12:49
  • -1 for an absolute statement such as "5 months is way too long". Please at least add "in my field". – Federico Poloni Mar 4 '17 at 13:44
  • From previously published articles i came to know The average time vary from 3-6 months. In my case it's almost 9 months has been passed. – MBK Mar 4 '17 at 13:58

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.