peer-review taking over 1 year

[saramago]

Editor here.

Polite requests to clarify the status of a paper are reasonable and, in my experience, delays are usually a function of my inability to find reviewers and/or reviewers dragging their feet.  On the other hand, I received this little gem the other day for a paper that has been in the system for only 6 weeks:

Dear Editor,
I hope this email finds you good in health and same expected for your beloved family. I being the Principal author of my Manuscript ''Basket weaving while tap dancing'' is requesting you to make possible for fast review and requesting to accept the Manuscript for publication so I can be able to initiate my thesis submission which is hindering the progress of my academic career.
Thanking you in anticipation.

As noted up thread, the fastest way to get a rejection is to act like some special snowflake and demand rapid action.  Clarifications and updates are fine.  Hurry the f up because I need a quick pub?  Not so much.

Oh boy, that is endearingly naive! But also rude (although some language issues are probably at play too). 

[Kron3007]

Editor here.

Polite requests to clarify the status of a paper are reasonable and, in my experience, delays are usually a function of my inability to find reviewers and/or reviewers dragging their feet.  On the other hand, I received this little gem the other day for a paper that has been in the system for only 6 weeks:

Dear Editor,
I hope this email finds you good in health and same expected for your beloved family. I being the Principal author of my Manuscript ''Basket weaving while tap dancing'' is requesting you to make possible for fast review and requesting to accept the Manuscript for publication so I can be able to initiate my thesis submission which is hindering the progress of my academic career.
Thanking you in anticipation.

As noted up thread, the fastest way to get a rejection is to act like some special snowflake and demand rapid action.  Clarifications and updates are fine.  Hurry the f up because I need a quick pub?  Not so much.

Oh boy, that is endearingly naive! But also rude (although some language issues are probably at play too).

I know in some countries you cannot graduate unless you have published a specified number of articles in pre-approved journals.  They may also have a job lined up that requires the degree in hand, in which case the timeline of the journal could impact their long term career success.  So, while they phrased it poorly, they may very well be in a situation where the journal's timeline is impacting their success.   

I have had similar situations where delays in a publication were holding up other projects and student progress and have included it in my message to the editor, but I did not ask for them to quickly review or to publish it, I simply explained our situation and asked for an anticipated timeline. 

In my experience (I am in STEM), a polite message to the editor has not obviously impacted the final outcome and I feel it has helped move it forward.  For reference I have contacted several, and they are usually understanding and are happy to provide the context of the delay. 

[Kron3007]

On a related note, the whole peer review process kind of sucks.  I have started using pre-print sites just to get my work out there without the inevitable 4-12 month delay of the system.  I would be perfectly happy to leave it at that and let my work stand for itself if I did not need to publish in peer reviewed journals for my career, and more importantly for my students' futures. 

I have not really had many of my papers significantly improved from the process and it is far too flawed to keep out all of the chaff.  If the feedback I got was more constructive it would be one thing, but I find most of it is not.    For me, it is mostly just a huge expense (my field typically charges $300-1200 for publication, and closer to $3000 for open access) and time sink.  I guess it is kind of like democracy, the worst, except for all the others...         

[Myword]

Wow, that price is crazy, way too much. I have never paid for my academic work. I did pay for a print on demand novel.

I skim the reviews or just delete them and feel better for it.  It is clear that the reviewers did not read it carefully nor the whole thing. Their criticism is often petty, and if they disagree with the purpose of the paper...well, that's a big strike. Who's to say that they know the subject better than you? They may be esteemed authorities or newbies. The writing style may be the issue.  I noticed that 3 authors have discussed and rebutted anonymous reviewers' comments  in different papers from chemistry to humanities recently, that I read.

Maybe the journal could reward reviewers with free copies or online access. Is it an example of Parkinson's Law:  the work expands to fill the time allowed for it. So people will use the full time given for a project thru procrastination.

[mleok]

To minimize the amount of time a R&R review takes, I also include a detailed point by point response indicating the changes which have been made to the manuscript in response to the referee comments and suggestions, together with a copy of the manuscript that marks up the additions and deletions which have been made. This reduces the time necessary for the referees to verify that their suggestions have been incorporated into the manuscript, and their concerns have been addressed. If I receive a revised manuscript without any of these, then I  have to reread the entire document, and that delays the review process substantially.

[mleok]

Maybe the journal could reward reviewers with free copies or online access. Is it an example of Parkinson's Law:  the work expands to fill the time allowed for it. So people will use the full time given for a project thru procrastination.

I already receive online access through my university, so my refereeing is pro bono work. Most established academics have a full pipeline of work, it's not that it takes several months to review a paper, it's just that my next availability for uncompensated review is several months in the future.

[Hibush]

For all their other drawbacks, MDPI journals offer fast reviews. They have identified a need in the arts and humanities, so there is quite a roster of journals: https://www.mdpi.com/subject/arts-humanity.

What would happen if humanists with something timely to say started publishing there, making one of those journals both legitimate in the eyes of peers but also fast?

[Parasaurolophus]

FWIW, several of the journals I've refereed for offer a year of access per review. My institution's library access is kind of poor, especially where new articles are concerned, so it's a nice perk.

[mleok]

For all their other drawbacks, MDPI journals offer fast reviews. They have identified a need in the arts and humanities, so there is quite a roster of journals: https://www.mdpi.com/subject/arts-humanity.

What would happen if humanists with something timely to say started publishing there, making one of those journals both legitimate in the eyes of peers but also fast?

At the end of the day, good, high-profile referees are overworked and in high demand, and if I get a referee request from a journal asking for a short turnaround time, I just decline the invitation. Faster reviews than are typical in a field or discipline, unless the journal (and the editorial board) is extremely high profile and influential, simply means that the referees you get are more junior or review the paper more superficially.

[Hibush]

For all their other drawbacks, MDPI journals offer fast reviews. They have identified a need in the arts and humanities, so there is quite a roster of journals: https://www.mdpi.com/subject/arts-humanity.

What would happen if humanists with something timely to say started publishing there, making one of those journals both legitimate in the eyes of peers but also fast?

At the end of the day, good, high-profile referees are overworked and in high demand, and if I get a referee request from a journal asking for a short turnaround time, I just decline the invitation. Faster reviews than are typical in a field or discipline, unless the journal (and the editorial board) is extremely high profile and influential, simply means that the referees you get are more junior or review the paper more superficially.

MDPI know this well, but their model is working so far. They seem to request reviews from perhaps a hundred people in the first go. Once two or three bite, they let the others know that their reviews won't be needed. So far, so good. However, this model compromises the quality of review, and is likely to burn out reviewers.

You may find some requests from them in your spam folder. That's where mine go directly.

[mleok]

MDPI know this well, but their model is working so far. They seem to request reviews from perhaps a hundred people in the first go. Once two or three bite, they let the others know that their reviews won't be needed. So far, so good. However, this model compromises the quality of review, and is likely to burn out reviewers.

You may find some requests from them in your spam folder. That's where mine go directly.

As an editor, I can't imagine there's any thought or quality control involved if one is sending out a hundred review requests per paper. I can't say that knowing that improves my impression of the company.

[Kron3007]

MDPI know this well, but their model is working so far. They seem to request reviews from perhaps a hundred people in the first go. Once two or three bite, they let the others know that their reviews won't be needed. So far, so good. However, this model compromises the quality of review, and is likely to burn out reviewers.

You may find some requests from them in your spam folder. That's where mine go directly.

As an editor, I can't imagine there's any thought or quality control involved if one is sending out a hundred review requests per paper. I can't say that knowing that improves my impression of the company.

Yeah, I have avoided MDPI so far as they seem dodgy.  That being said, I see a lot of good groups publishing with them more and more, so I may change my tune.

One thing I do like, even though it comes across as dodgy, is that they provide incentives for reviewing etc, such as reduced publication fees.  I find the whole publishing system crazy, with us paying to publish and reviewing for free.  At the end of the day, this system just inflates the costs of research, and is out dated.

[Myword]

What are your fields? I was told  that a particular journal repeatedly could not find 2-3 reviewers for many submissions including mine. A midlevel international old journal. It occurs to me that in some cases, journal editors could reject it for lack of reviewers

[Parasaurolophus]

I'm in philosophy. As far as I'm aware, most journals are pretty good, but there are a few top generalist journals with reputations for taking an excessively long time. If you work in logic, though, all bets are off.

[Myword]

Update.
I finally got my comments from reviewers. Major revise and resubmit. Okay with me but this is a lot of work, many,many hours with no guarantee. I enjoy this writing--its my escape from life but I'want to move on to a totally different project.
The editor's comments were not optimistic-- weak approval. Makes you wonder what percent of revisions in humanity fields are accepted or not. I saw this online once. --Perhaps many authors are revising their articles simultaneously for this journal. Some offers to revise may be empty promises? Only courtesy. Reviewers could ask for very challenging revisions that would be difficult to carry out , deliberately.

Thoughts?