Recently I received a rejection from a top journal. But when the editor in chief sent me the rejection email, she included the name of the associate editor that handled my paper. This associate editor works in a department which has a job opening this year that I have applied. So I’m nervous because if the associate editor can see my name, he could think negatively of me because of my paper, which could affect my chance to get the job. So can the associate editor see the author’s name on their paper? Thank you!

I recently submitted a manuscript to a journal that focuses on short papers about software packages. One reviewer gave a very detailed (and helpful) critique of my software/paper with one major objection: another package already exists that has similar functionality. S/he mandated that I clarify what my package offers that the other package does not.

Unfortunately, I was not aware of the other software package when I started my project (which I’m pretty embarrassed about). On further inspection, I realize that this other package is far superior to my own in terms of functionality and performance. I’ve come to the conclusion that my project is not salvageable. This is disappointing but not soul crushing as it was a side project that is only tangential to my dissertation work. Frankly, I don’t have time to improve my software to point of being a significant contribution, and I’d only do so for the sake of “getting a publication,” which does not seem fruitful. Improvements wouldn’t be immediately useful to me. and thus I don’t have the motivation to submit a revision.

That said, I’d really like to submit a genuine word of thanks to the anonymous reviewer for their detailed critique of my paper/software. Through their comments and working through a revision I learned a lot (how to use Docker, sharing and recording terminal sessions through
asciinema/asciicast, general improvements to my writing, etc.) Do editors allow authors to respond to reviewers even if their manuscript is essentially rejected? It seems as though editors would generally disallow this since authors responding to a rejection may often want to say something nasty. Would it be best to email the editor directly with my request or respond through the submission system?

A few days ago I posted a question on specific paper on RG. Another researcher says this is insulated paper that really shocked me because it is central to my research.

After I saw this comment I contact this person to get more explanation that may guide me but he didn’t respond.

The paper name is “Multimodal Registration of Remotely Sensed Images Based on Jeffrey’s Divergence, 2016” and my interest is multimodal image registration, below you will find a screenshot for the discussion.
enter image description here

I post this question to get some advice from senior researchers that may pass through a situation.

Update: How can Q1 journal accept to publish insulated work?


I have submitted a mathematical-physics manuscript to Journal of Mathematical Physics, and I am in a situation similar to the one described here: It has been two months since I submitted, and the editor still cannot find reviewers. I have asked the editor what happens if he/she keeps trying and will still be unable find any reviewer, but he/she refuses to answer me.

The manuscript is in the field of celestial mechanics and is quite specific. However, two months seems a pretty long time to me, and I am incline to think that this is the journal’s fault, i.e., the journal or editor is not known enough, he/she does not have a good network of referees, and I feel that I am wasting my time and should withdraw my submission and submit it to another journal.

Do you concur with this? According to your experience, what is the best decision to make sure that the manuscript is published in a reasonable time in this journal, or in another journal with similar impact?

Reviewers for a journal can sometimes be graduate students or usually postdocs, in addition to professors. For someone in a junior position, such as a postdoc or even an assistant professor, review requests can often be sought after as a sign of professional development and a sign of influence in the field. As a result, they may feel a pressure to provide a good impression to the editors by providing reviews which seem thorough and substantive. A review which may only contain a few sentences, valid or otherwise, may reflect a perceived lack of understanding or effort on the part of the reviewer. Unfortunately, this can lead to a problem of over-reviewing a paper, and lead to an overabundance of suggestions and requested corrections which would obfuscate or weaken the integrity of the paper.

For those with experience in this area how valid is this observation? Do editors view long reviews more favorably over short ones?

P.S. To clarify, ideally, an editor should be the best judge of a good or bad review; however it is understandably difficult for them to easily judge the merit of a paper/review (due to the inherent difficulty of being an expert in every topic covered by a journal, and time) – hence the job of the reviewers.

I am stuck up in a situation where two of the three reviewers have already accepted my article (when I revised my article for the first time). But, the third reviewer seems to be hell bent with not accepting my work. In the first instance, he said that “The paper is not acceptable in its current form”. After the first revision, he still says “I am not able to recommend this article for publication” after citing that he is not convinced enough with the significant contributions of the article. However, he confessed by saying “I appreciate the authors’ efforts but it is my opinion that they fall short in addressing these issues satisfactorily”. I would like to know that where is the communication process heading to, is it in for a REJECTION? However, the tone of the third reviewer has been very harsh in both the rounds of his reviews.

I am a Ph.D. student and presently dealing with my first paper that I had submitted to Scientific Reports.

I received back the reviewer comments together with a note from the editor asking me (as the first author) to revise and resubmit within 4 weeks (exact wording below*). However, my coauthors and I will likely not be able to finish the revision in time (there are only a few days left), and I am wondering how strictly editors stick to these deadlines, and if they are typically likely to close the submission altogether, or rather happy to accept the revision even sometime later. The editor him/herself would obviously be the best person to ask, however, I am not getting a reply to my request for an extension, and I would need to know soon whether to drop everything and just work crazy hours to get the revision to them in time.

We hope to receive your revised paper within four weeks. If you cannot send it within this time, please let us know so that we can close your file. In this event, we will still be happy to reconsider your paper at a later date as long as you haven’t submitted similar or related work elsewhere in the meantime.

I have a paper under review. Two of the reviewers have accepted the paper. The third reviewer is ……This is the first time that I met such a blind reviewer. Most of his questions are superficial and they have answers in my paper. It is just his careless review that makes him did not find it. For example, he asked me where the shear stress is measure. However, the definition is just in the text and the Table. In another Table, I compare my date with others and I just call my date as “present”. This is very common and the author’s study is always called as “present”. But he did not find it and asked me aggressively that why there is no date of mine in that Table… He asked me why I just present others’ date without mine. Also, he criticizes me that the error in a Figure is 10MPa… Dear God, please give him a new pair of eyes. The error is not as big as 10MPa. He just match the wrong date. He may compare my date in a position with the reference date in another position. Also, he forces me to cite papers……I just sent emails and complain about the reviewer 3. I also ask whether it is possible to accept the paper by finding one more reviewer(If 3 accept and 1 reject, I feel this is more convincing…) However, When I contact with the EIC, the editor told me that:
Once I have such request again, he will reject my paper….
That is all his reply. Nothing else… He did not even go into this issue and just conclude that…..
My advisor just asked me to bear it. But I just try to find some support here. I have publicized 6 journal papers (IF 2-4) and I am a PhD student in Aerospace. My research is finite element methods. Thank you.

So, I was asked to referee a paper for a reputed TCS journal which I did. I wrote my report within 3 months from invitation but I was waiting almost 6 more months till I get notification form the editor for the decision (sent to authors but also to myself as a referee).

The authors of that paper prepared a major revision and submitted within 3 weeks this new version, and I was asked by the editor to re-evaluate this newer version. I did, within again 3 months.

Now, more than 6 months have passed since I uploaded my report and still no news from the editor. When I login as a reviewer into the system I see: Status under review and Status Date to be the date when I uploaded my recommendation. From this I conclude that no new referee was asked and simply the 2nd referee is, again, very late with her/his report (6+3 = 9 months at least since we were asked to re-evaluate the new version).

Now, this is a very interesting, difficult and somewhat controversial, paper and I would realy like the authors to see and answer my comments/suggestions/questions as soon as possible . The more time passes, the more I forget about the paper and I would have to read it again and again in a possible 3rd round.

Question: Does it make sense me, as a reviewer, to contact the editor about the status of the paper stating my reasons about that? What would be, most likely, the reaction of the editor? Did this ever happened? Or simply to stay silent since this is not my paper?

Note that I do not plan to have time after Septembe,r due to many commitements, to dedicate myself on re-evaluating such a difficult paper so it is a matter of time for me and this is an issue that would affect my plan next semester when the other referee decides to send the report to go into the 3rd round.