Assume you have been given comments for a major revision from a respected journal. You have to work hard to respond the comments to referees one by one. But suddenly, you somehow guess with a high probability that a person who is a long time adversary of your supervisor may be behind this comments and he won’t be satisfied no matter what you do.

What would you do? Can you disclose a conflict of interest with one or two professors from a particular university not to be a referee? What may happen?

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 a Ph.D. student. My supervisor frequently tells me if you want to do a review for journals, login into my account and perform the review. He never reviews any paper. He is very lazy and I have to do all of the submission of my articles into journal system myself using his account.

A while ago, I wanted to check a journal and I saw a pending invitation for review from a famous researcher, which I love his works very much, as associate editor of that journal. I accepted review and downloaded manuscript. I read the manuscript and wrote a detailed review of it, six pages long!. I recommended a major revision. It takes a lot of my time to read the references and perform the review. In my review, I suggested a set of improvements to the authors which I think will help them improve their work.

Today, I wanted to submit the review using my supervisor account. I suddenly noticed that my supervisor submitted a review. I am very upset as it took much of my time to perform this task. I read his review, a very short note to reject the manuscript, less than half a page long. Other anonymous reviewers recommended a minor revision.

What should I do? Is there any way to make the best use of my review? not to waste my time.

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 published my first article a while ago, nothing special, just rigorous formalization of some well-known facts.

Now I got a mail writing

We have read about your published precious paper in FORMALIZED MATHEMATICS titled About Quotient Orders and Ordering Sequences, and the topic of the paper has impressed us a lot.
The paper has attracted attention from researchers and scholars specializing in quotient order; ordered finite sequences.

Especially the last part looks manufactured, that are just the keywords extracted.

On behalf of the Editorial Board of the journal, we sincerely invite you to join our team as the editorial board member or reviewer of ******. Taking your academic background and rich experience in this field into account, the Board believe that you are quite qualified for this position. We believe that your position as the editorial board member or reviewer will shine a light on your research in related fields.

“academic background and rich experience” Yeah, but no. Really, really no, at this point in time.

So the email is clearly generated automatically, but the links seem to work and the journal does have entries in Google Scholar and an archive on their website, it is not a scam per se. It is an Open Access and Peer reviewed journal, but it is obvious I was just some entry and no one looked at my paper (or my academic background) seriously.

How serious can such an invitation be? Since it’s a peer reviewed journal, are they just frantically looking for reviewers? Would they even consider a positive reaction of me, due to my academic short comings which start with me not even having a M.Sc. yet?

I’m specifically not asking for career advice. I’m not in the league of publication for too long, I don’t really know how things like becoming a reviewer work, if this would be payed for anyhow, etc. If this mail constitutes a bad practice I would like to know because I will likely get more of these in the future.

I sent an article to a top journal. It was reviewed by 2 reviewers. The decision made was ‘revision’. I revised the manuscript and sent a detailed point by point response to reviewer comments. During revision the status changed directly from ‘with editor’ to ‘decision in process’ within a span of 4 days. I was under the impression that the reviewers would go through the paper again and based on their comments a decision would be made by the editor. But it seems that the editor is making the decision himself. Is this correct?
. The result is yet to be received, so fingers crossed 😉

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.

We are submitting an “application of A to B” kind of paper, to a conference in B. There are a big overlap between A and B communities, and we are the N-th (N > 100 or even 1000) to find an application of a technique in A for a problem in B.

The problem: one reviewer obviously has no background in A, and gives us “reject” because he thinks the presentation of the method is confusing, and “terminology and notation are not defined sufficiently clearly for a non-initiate to be able to follow”. He also gives detailed comments, but they are technically wrong, and easy to answer.

Due to space limit, we do not provide formal definitions for basic concepts in A, these definitions can be found in countless textbooks and surveys. Therefore, his overall comment is somewhat correct, in the sense that our paper is not for “a non-initiate”, we assume the readers have basic background in A (he explicitly asked about some basic notations in the detailed comments).

But this is the only reason for rejection, and we think it is very unfair. Other reviewers have no problem understanding our paper, and one even lists “well-written” as our strong points. However they only give “weak accept”, so it’s likely that nobody will champion for us.

Our goal is not to offend this reviewer. We want him to be happy while accepting that he is wrong. I intend to say something like the following: “we partially agree that this paper is not for every one, as we assume readers are familiar with standard notations in A. However, we believe that there are readers with background and interest in the B community”. Possible problems:

  • This implies he doesn’t have background in A (which is true). But he does not admit that, and we are afraid he may feel insulted?
  • As his details comments are technically wrong. We want to make a short “No” in the answer of each comments, following by an explanation. This can show our firm answers. But we are afraid that too many “No”s will make him upset?

So my question is: how should I effectively answer this reviewer.

For a new paper about media archaeology in the context of scientific publication, I found an interesting topic which is not very well researched yet. As far as I know from research, in the year 2000 academic publication was done sometimes electronic and sometimes with printed material. Also, the Science Direct website was not invented yet.

But what is not given in the literature is, if in that time it was possible to do the peer-review process online or only with individual letters over postal mail service. Does anybody know the details of how the peer-review process was done in the year 2000?

I’m asking with a special question in mind. The idea is to describe the technical development of peer-review from the 1980s until the year 2010 with a focus on the work distribution among group of scientists. As far as I know, the idea behind peer review is that it can be done in parallel. But the scheduling must be coordinated, so my question is, if twenty years ago, this was done over e-mail, over postal letters or with the aforementioned Science Direct platform.