New answers tagged

7

I would say this is a common, but not fatal, issue. I think most mathematicians are aware of several papers in their field with serious errors/gaps without retractions/errata, and over time at least the wrong papers which are important get discovered. (e.g., see this MO post for temporary counterexamples---there aren't too many that went unnoticed for too ...


3

Based on my experience in academic publishing, I'm guessing that the editor invited multiple reviewers, most of whom declined but one agreed. The one who agreed wrote the review you received. The editor discerned that it's not particularly deep - as you write it's mostly cosmetic - and so was not willing to accept it based on the one review. However, since ...


5

Journals don't retract scientific papers because they are now known to be wrong. If this were the case, they would have to retract a zillion papers from the past because, well, science evolves: new findings disprove old ones, old mistakes get corrected, and new ones are introduced. And this happens in mathematics too. This answer on MathOverflow makes a ...


1

A similar thing happened to me. It's possible that, had reviewer 1 written a substantial report, the editor would have asked you to revise and resubmit. But precisely the fact that, as you suggest, it was positive but also rather superficial didn't help your case much. In any event, the lack of available reviewers is useful information: it might indicate ...


3

This is a little unusual, and it's hard to know what happened. I have seen many papers accepted on the basis of a single report, even if the editor solicited more. One possibility is that the editor contacted potential reviewers who declined to provide a full review, but did make negative comments. It is also possible that the editor has some concerns about ...


9

It seems to me that the editor asked people to review your article, but not enough people were willing to do so. Apparently, the editor thought your article had enough of a chance not to give you a desk-reject, but your article (or your abstract) was not exciting enough to convince potential reviewers to review it. Maybe it is not the article/abstract, but ...


4

It means they're inviting you to review the revision. If you accept the review, then you get to read the paper, make new comments, make new recommendation, etc. If you decline, they'll either find someone else or make a decision. Based on your description, there isn't enough information to tell if there are other reviewers invited. You certainly are, but ...


2

The American Mathematical Society provides regular (annual, I believe) on journal backlog times. The latest can be found here: https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201910/rnoti-p1713.pdf Depending on your subfield it may not contain data on all relevant journals, but it is quite comprehensive. The reports are published in the November issue of the Notices of ...


1

A general source for many, many domains beyond just mathematics is SciRev, a site where authors submit reviews of their experience with the peer-review process at many (hundreds or thousands?) of journals across many disciplines. If you click on the "All reviews" tab, you can then search for journals by name or discipline; it includes many subfields of ...


-1

This answer might not be liked by most, but I would advice against rejecting reviewer's suggestions at this point. It's best to consider benefits and risk of your actions and by setting yourself against the reviewer you may just be making things much harder for yourself. Instead, do as asked and and add couple of citations to suggested papers and try to get ...


3

Include any relevant references, and thank the reviewer for them (for the sake of goodwill try to find at least one that's somehow relevant, even if it's a bit tenuous). Explain in your response to the editor that you are reluctant to include the others as they do not appear relevant. The editor may insist that you include them anyway. In that case, you ...


110

Think of the review process as a debate between you and the reviewers, with the editor as jury. You would like to convince the reviewers, but ultimately, you want to convince the editor. The editor has called in the reviewers as domain experts so will listen to what they have to say. But ultimately the editor makes up their own mind. It's just that the ...


20

The editor said I must carry out the essential revisions. Citing unrelated work is not an essential revision. Only cite what's relevant and explain in your reply why you choose to cite some papers but not others. You are not obliged to follow all suggestions from the reviewers, in particular not those instructions that make your paper worse rather than ...


1

Two years is pretty long by any standard. I would suggest to withdraw and submit elsewhere.


3

My preference, as a reviewer, has been to print a hard copy from the pdf file and then attack it with a red pen. As my handwriting becomes less legible ("benign essential tremor"), I'll switch to the second-simplest system: Ask the student to send me the TeX file and insert my remarks into it. (I have some simple macros defining an environment for my remarks,...


-1

You think those points are not controversial, but they maybe are (not speaking about typos, of course). Maybe it is a bad example, but there might be some country where the natural logarithm would be written as log and the authors would like to have it that way. [Exchange this example with anything you like.] If that was the case, it could be discussed like ...


0

Personally I would do things the other way round fix 1 and 2, and not ignore 3 but maybe push back in what's asked. Anyway back to the question, I expect it's a either an expectation that the journal will correct spelling/formatting issues (depends on the journal) or a gamble that you wouldn't reject a paper just because of a spelling mistake.


8

Don't overthink this. Write a concise and polite reply. Here is an example that is not perfect but should do it. Dear Professor ..., we recently received the reviews for our paper ...., which we submitted to the journal ...., of which you are a/the editor of. While we found the comments by reviewer 1 very helpful, we noticed that review ...


10

Ask yourself whether it is worth it for a "minor point". But you can ask the editor for advice. And, as you suggest, you can also just give your best advice for the fix. You don't need to speak badly of the other reviewer to do so. Just say what you think the authors should do to make the paper better. Conflicting reviews are common enough.


17

If your alarm bells are ringing, but the offered position is attractive, then there are ways to check it out without causing problems. Example: The person who's name is on this invite will have contact information outside this particular email. A phone number or email that you don't get from this email, for example, but from their institution or some such. ...


11

Is that normal, or should that ring some bells? It is normal to have received an e-mail inviting me to join the program committee even better that it is for a well-established and renowned conference and that it looks genuine Personally, I would have already accepted the invitation. However, I do not directly know the guy writing to me That's ...


9

I have served on several search committees lately for faculty members, and, honestly, I haven't seen one CV structure the peer review section in this fashion. In my personal opinion, doing so looks like CV padding. We all know that the reviewing process can have multiple read throughs and comments, so I do not think it is necessary to include the number of ...


1

I wouldn't jeopardise the response. I would neatly adress all the points raised by the referee as usual in a single letter addressed to the editor, clearly indicating when you respond to criticisms or suggestions only stated in the pdf report by quoting or grouping them (depending on their importance, as usual).


1

Either approach is fine. The quality and clarity of the responses is more important than the format.


9

As one of the people who writes reviews in the form of annotated PDF files + a summary review, I think I'm in a good position to answer this question :-) At least in my case, annotations in the PDF are often of relatively small points. I expect you to address all points raised in annotations, but you don't have to prove it to me by mentioning them ...


8

It is perfectly acceptable to email your paper to another researcher, and ask if they have any comments or suggestions. It would also be perfectly acceptable for him to not reply. If he does, the reply might be something short like "Thanks for sending, looks like a nice piece of work!" If you do write, I'd recommend you do the following: Keep your email ...


0

Having published a few things with Elsevier journals I can tell you that you often need to suggest reviewers. Your supervisor is the big cheese, so he gets put on that list. Don't be upset about the authorship, some journals make you describe contributions to stop this, but it is very common practice, and there are comics about how much work different ...


2

Others have given good advice regarding how you should respond to the review. But to add a little regarding your concerns: I don’t understand why the journal contacted him and not me to review that paper though I was the corresponding author? I feel very bad that even though it was my work the journals did not send me the paper for review. What do ...


-1

TL;DR: Doing the review for your supervisor is as mandatory as making him an author of your paper. For the editor, it practically matters only that your supervisor commands the expertise required for the review. This is kind of circular, but let’s start here: My advisor had almost no contribution in the paper, but since it is mandatory to put the advisor’...


3

I would suggest to review the paper, it's a very good experience. Tell your supervisor to warn the journal editor that he refused to review the paper and you will do the work.


37

One way to resolve this would be that your advisor refused to review the manuscript and suggests you as a possible reviewer. Then the editor can decide what to do. Do not overthink why your advisor was chosen first. He has been around for a longer time and is therefore more known to editors. I would prefer this procedure to a simple 'yes' to the request (...


5

Normally the answer to such requests is yes. It is good experience. But the review may wind up being in the name of the advisor. He was contacted as a more senior academic, I think, and the editor didn't know of his lack of specific knowledge. However, since the work is related to your own, it might be worth letting the editor know, directly or, preferably,...


3

Many think it is unethical to have your coauthor to review the paper; many think it is not. Many journals and associations have strict guidelines on this matter; I suggest you to take a look at the answers to Conflict of interest as a referee, especially @DavidRicherby's one, and possibly also to other questions with the tag conflict-of-interest. In any ...


0

I assume you mean a formal co-author. Someone listed on the paper itself. It isn't unethical to nominate them, but I don't think any editor would go along with it. They want an independent analysis. So, I think you would be wasting an opportunity by naming a co-author. It would probably generate a laugh at the editorial office. But if you are speaking ...


0

Unless you know the actual process of the given journal all you can really conclude is that it is "moving along" in the process. Some journals will have "awaiting referee reports" or similar. But it is possible that the paper was quickly reviewed by a trusted reviewer and it is back to the editor already. If it sits too long without changing its ...


0

As always there’s a 1000 combinations of situations where this can arise. Let’s assume as stated there is a surplus of submissions. One scenario would be the editor cannot so easily find a referee from the usual pool - the usual referees are busy with other papers - so the editor contacts someone who agrees only to write back to the editor after 3 weeks ...


2

I'm not a lawyer, but their definition of "preprint" says: This is the author's own write-up of research results and analysis that has not been peer reviewed, nor had any other value added to it by a publisher (such as formatting, copy-editing, technical enhancements, and the like). Note all of these - formatting, copy-editing, technical enhancements - ...


3

Educated guess of what happened: they invited reviewers (which automatically updates the status even if the reviewers don't agree to review). Some/many of the reviewers then declined to review, giving reasons that made the editor decide to desk reject your paper. I'm not a mathematician, but from what I've heard, 4.5 months is not a particularly long wait ...


Top 50 recent answers are included