I have just reviewed for a journal that allows me to transfer my information to Publons. It seems Publons is a relatively new thing with limited uptake. It also seems like the type of thing that would be better suited to be managed by a non-profit in a free (at least as in freedom and possibly as in beer) sense.

Is there a free competitor to Publons? If not, what data should I be keeping regarding my reviews such that if at a later date I wish to upload them to Publons, or a competitor, I can?

I submitted a paper to a journal, and I suspect that it is handled too slowly.

  • How can I decide whether my suspicion is correct? What handling times should I expect?

  • Given some expected handling times, when should I act? How much leeway should I give?

  • How should I act? Whom should I contact and what should I (roughly) write?

Note that I am interested on how I should approach this situation in general, and do not seek specific numbers for my specific situation.
I am therefore looking for general answers that are independent of such factors as the field or individual journal (but mention them if they are relevant factors).

This is a canonical question on this topic as per this meta post. Due to its nature, it is rather broad and not exemplary for a regular question on this site. Please feel free to improve this question.

I had a manuscript written 3 years before. The results of the manuscript was obtained accidentally while doing some easy trial methods. Although the results were very interesting, but the method was very very simple. So I thought to publish it in a low impact journal to increase my number of publications. But things went very opposite and got rejected in 5 journals. Everyone were commenting that the method is very simple and may introduce the unknown errors to the estimations or computations.

As no one was commenting other than the methods, so I had no way to modify anything. Very bad thing is that none of the journal took less than 4-6 months to take the first decision and my manuscript remained unaccepted for two years and half.

Finally I thought to submit it to a high impact journal. Very surprisingly, the reviewers appreciated the simple method used and accepted the manuscript with a major revision to highlight few other things.

My accepted manuscript highlights the same methodology which was rejected by 5 other journals.

Will there be any conflict or issues when those reviewers (who rejected my manuscript) see my accepted paper after final publication?

I need short review of my research paper on “A Method of Increasing Content and User Interface Enhancements for Increasing the Number of Persistent Visitors to a Real-World Website” from a person who has experience in web development or web design. Please message me your first and last name after reviewing. Your review will be sent to my instructor for grading purposes.

Link to paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wO6rLtFep3I0IXcbUAl4IKwh2A38SvGb/view?usp=sharing

I had a manuscript written 3 years before. The results of the manuscript was obtained accidentally while doing some easy trial methods. Although the results were very interesting, but the method was very very simple. So I thought to publish it in a low impact journal to increase my number of publications. But things went very opposite and got rejected in 5 journals. Everyone were commenting that the method is very simple and may introduce the unknown errors to the estimations or computations.

As no one was commenting other than the methods, so I had no way to modify anything. Very bad thing is that none of the journal took less than 4-6 months to take the first decision and my manuscript remained unaccepted for two years and half.

Finally I thought to submit it to a high impact journal. Very surprisingly, the reviewers appreciated the simple method used and accepted the manuscript with a major revision to highlight few other things.

Now my question is: My accepted manuscript highlights the same methodology which was rejected by 5 other journals. So whether there will be any conflict or issue when those reviewers (who rejected my manuscript) will see my accepted paper after final publication?

I have submitted a paper for publication. The review process is completed, and I have recieved this email from the editorial manager:

Your manuscript was reviewed. The handling editor has just to make his recommendation. This is just a question of a few days. His opinion is however, very important as the reviews are controversy.

I would like to know, if it is a good or a bad news?

i have submitted a paper for publication, the review process is completed and i have recieved this email from the editorial manager:
“Your manuscript was reviewed. The handling editor has just to make his recommendation. This is just a question of a few days. His opinion is however, very important as the reviews are controversy”

I would like to know if it is a good or a bad news,
thank you very much

What steps does a manuscript typically go through from submission to publication (or rejection) in a typical journal? How are these steps referred to, in particular by editorial systems, and how long do they each typically take?

Note that this question is about the typical situation and hence not about:

  • Journals with an atypical workflow, e.g. those that allow for an instantaneous reviewer–author interaction.
  • Exceptional steps or rare occurrences such as withdrawal or clerical errors.

This is a canonical question on this topic as per this Meta post. Due to its nature, it is rather broad and not exemplary for a regular question on this site. Please feel free to improve this question.

I am in an interesting situation, I have a masters degree in electrical engineering but have been working as a software engineer for about 10 years. I have a lot of interest in doing peer reviews and contributing to research part-time in computer science. But I find it very hard to convince anyone to let me review their work.

My question is, is it possible to do so while working in a day job? If so, how can one go about signing up to do peer reviews? All the journals seems to want to see credibility before you can peer-review any articles or papers.

How can one get started midway through their work career?