Sunday, February 17, 2013


The process of writing a paper...long nights in front of the computer.
If only the reviewers could be a bit faster on their decision...
47 days after submitting the reviewed version of our latest paper, after having fixed pretty much everything that was criticized by the reviewers, we are still waiting for their response. The long waiting period involved in all the processes that require peer review is the one thing I truly dislike about the way we do science nowadays. I wonder if this frustration is shared by everyone or if the group of people who are not that happy with the way peer review works is relatively small. I was involved in reviewing a couple of papers recently. It seemed like the journals wanted to have the reviews back in less than a week. I held them a few extra days (yep, guilty as charged!), but I'm sure it didn't take me more than week and a half. If that's the standard that seems to be the followed by most of the journals, why can't it be that way with the journals I pick for our papers?
Overall mood: Frustration.
Forecast: When the reviews comeback they may still want something else...
What to do next: Forget about it and start working at full strength on the new paper for which we have already most of the figures ready.

1 comment:

  1. OK, I sent an email to the Editor of the journal (equivalent to sending an email to the president of the country) and this triggered a series of responses. But the process is blocked at the very end: one of the reviewers has not sent his (her?) comments and therefore a final decision will not be taken until that final reviewer submits his/her comments. This brings memories of a video I saw about two years ago. Here is the link: