Manuscript revision

[the-tenure-track-prof]

Hi all. About a year and a half ago, I submitted a peer-reviewed manuscript to a scientific journal. Nine months later, I received feedback from the reviewers that the manuscript would be accepted if I addressed the attached comments. I accepted the decision and worked for quite some time to address the reviewers' comments and submitted the revised copy as requested. Two months later, I still did not hear back any final decision, so I followed up with the results of the revised submission. After several emails, someone responded that the journal went through a change and hired a new EIC and that it may take some time to get back to me with a decision. I was puzzled because the manuscript had already been reviewed. I addressed the reviewers' comments and it only needed a review of the reviewers' comments and revised copy to decide on acceptance or rejection. I waited another month and brought it to the staff's attention that the manuscript has already been reviewed and the comments have been addressed and submitted to the EIC.

After some time, I gave up on them and no longer followed up with the manuscript, and never heard from them again about any update contrary to what I was told. Two weeks ago, which is almost two years since the original submission`s date and eight months since the revised manuscript submission date, I received a new email with a new set of comments from another group of reviewers that the EIC assigned. I was astonished and responded to the email inquiring about the content and informing the EIC that I never submitted another manuscript to the journal other than the old manuscript that I submitted two years ago, to which I received the comments and submitted a revised copy according to the reviewers' comments. The EIC responded that he came on board and "had to send the manuscript to new reviewers and to go through the entire process again." I thought that this person lacked experience and mannerisms, if not poor work ethics. I was never asked if I agree that the manuscript undergoes a new review. The EIC was rude enough not to explain what happened with the old reviews, especially since it included a list of items I addressed in a revised manuscript.
In my field, reviews can take 1-6 months, and during the pandemic, this time became a little longer but not 2 years. I note this because I know that peer reviews can take longer in some fields.

My question is: does the EIC`s behavior consider ethical behavior?.  Would it be a good idea to submit a rebuttal letter, or would it be a waste of time?.
I submit papers to journals all the time. I never encountered an incident with EIC where he ignored authors and reviewers and disrespected and abused new reviewers without telling them that the manuscript had been reviewed and asking me whether or not I would like to proceed in the process. 

[mamselle]

I'm hearing a theme here.

People who do what you don't expect are often described as "rude," when in fact this is a case of simple confusion.

Is there no space in your universe for grace?

M.

[arcturus]

Did you withdraw your submission? If the submission is not withdrawn, it is assumed to still be under review. It is entirely within the scope of the review process for the editor to request additional reviews. Responding to the initial review does not imply a guaranteed acceptance.

From my own experience as a reviewer, I once gave an overall positive review to a paper with what I considered minor issues for revision before it would be acceptable for the journal. However, the authors' response to my comments revealed substantial mis-understanding of the relevant literature and the re-written text was no longer acceptable. Thus, something that appeared to be almost ready for publication became an article that I then recommended for rejection. The editor may have sent the paper for further review at that point. I have also received papers where the editor was looking for an alternative opinion. In those cases, I am usually provided with the revised paper and all correspondence between author and journal, including the other reviews and response-to-review.

So, in summary, if you did not withdraw your paper, the only relevant professional complaint is that it took so long for the reviews to be completed.

[Puget]

Ultimately, the decision to accept a paper is up to the editor, not the reviewers. Usually, when the executive editorship changes hands, the old editor continues to handle papers that are in the revision process until they are through, but in this case something may have prevented that (like the old editor stepped down due to illness or other life circumstances). New editor, new decision-- unfortunate for you, but not at all unethical.

And as arcturus notes, it isn't that unusual for additional reviewers to be added after a revision-- sometimes because not all the old reviewers are available to review the revision, sometimes because the editor decides additional expertise is needed. It can be frustrating as an author, but it is fully within the prerogative of the editor.

It also sounds like you may have been pretty rude in your communication with the new editor. Don't do that-- it certainly will not buy you any benefit of the doubt in future.  In future, if you wish to withdraw your submission, you need to actually withdraw it, and as noted you don't get to dictate terms to the editor-you can choose to submit there or not, nothing more.

[Parasaurolophus]

A rebuttal is a waste of your time. Eight months is a long time for revisions, and I don't see why having a new EIC would require new referees for any submission.

That said, I think this is key:

Did you withdraw your submission? If the submission is not withdrawn, it is assumed to still be under review. It is entirely within the scope of the review process for the editor to request additional reviews. Responding to the initial review does not imply a guaranteed acceptance.

I also wonder about your initial verdict: was it an acceptance with revisions, or a revise and resubmit? The latter does sometimes involve new referees, and isn't always guaranteed (I just had one declined for the first time a couple of months ago).

[the-tenure-track-prof]

I did not withdraw the manuscript. The manuscript received acceptance with revisions. After the revisions were submitted, they hired a new EIC.
I, too, think that a rebuttal is a waste of time. Thanks.

A rebuttal is a waste of your time. Eight months is a long time for revisions, and I don't see why having a new EIC would require new referees for any submission.

That said, I think this is key:

Did you withdraw your submission? If the submission is not withdrawn, it is assumed to still be under review. It is entirely within the scope of the review process for the editor to request additional reviews. Responding to the initial review does not imply a guaranteed acceptance.

I also wonder about your initial verdict: was it an acceptance with revisions, or a revise and resubmit? The latter does sometimes involve new referees, and isn't always guaranteed (I just had one declined for the first time a couple of months ago).

[Ruralguy]

You either go with what they want and politely accept this or withdraw. They may have efficiency issues, but, that happens. I would suggest you eat the dunk costs and just do what they want, and get this done. There's certainly no ethical issues here that I can see.

[Ruralguy]

Sunk costs, that is.

[Puget]

I did not withdraw the manuscript. The manuscript received acceptance with revisions. After the revisions were submitted, they hired a new EIC.

Acceptance is always conditional on the editor approving the revisions though-- unless the article was actually accepted (not "accepted pending revisions"), this is frustrating but not actionable -- there is never any guarantee of acceptance until it is actually accepted.

What isn't clear to me is what happened in the meantime-- you gave up on this journal responding, but didn't withdraw it or submit it elsewhere?

[the-tenure-track-prof]

The issue is that after I submitted the revision and asked for the decision, the staff did not inform me that it was rejected, nor did the EIC says that, nor say anything at all.
They informed me that the new EIC is canceling everything in the journal (did not know what that means) the old EIC did and starting from scratch. It sounded that they had a mess in their journal and asked for patience during "their transition."- that's all no word whatsoever about the manuscript. Their problem is not mine, nor do I care about this EIC.
I did not withdraw the manuscript, but after months of getting nowhere with the journal staff, getting no communication about the manuscript, I informed them that I am submitting elsewhere, and never heard back again. I did submit elsewhere to a much better journal with a higher impact factor, which is under review and expected to complete the review soon. I believe I will hear from them soon. I decided to drop the submission. Thank you all.

I did not withdraw the manuscript. The manuscript received acceptance with revisions. After the revisions were submitted, they hired a new EIC.

Acceptance is always conditional on the editor approving the revisions though-- unless the article was actually accepted (not "accepted pending revisions"), this is frustrating but not actionable -- there is never any guarantee of acceptance until it is actually accepted.

What isn't clear to me is what happened in the meantime-- you gave up on this journal responding, but didn't withdraw it or submit it elsewhere?

[jerseyjay]

I find this whole situation confusing.

Part of me wonders if some aspect of this is that the OP seems to be somewhat vague in describing things. If this is the case in communication with the journal, I can see that causing frustration all around. On top of it, the OP seems to make harsh personal attacks on the editorial staff ("lacked experience and mannerisms" [?], "poor work ethic," abusive and disrespectful,  unethical, etc.).

From what I am able to understand:
The OP submits an article to a journal.

After nine months, the journal informs the OP that if certain revisions were made the article would be accepted.
[This would actually be a quick turnaround in my field, history. However, the OP says that 1-6 months is the standard. The length at this step might have been a red flag that there was something wrong at the journal.]

After taking "quite some time," the OP returns the revised m.s.   
[Again, fields are different, but in my experience, if it takes such a long time to revise a m.s., it probably is not a case of making minor revisions but more major revisions. That is, the may have been a miscommunication about the nature of the revisions required.]

After two months, when the OP follows up with the journal, they are told by "someone at the journal" that the piece is still under review.

Without formally withdrawing the piece, the OP submits somewhere else (which actually is an ethical breach in many fields), and then, several months later, gets back reviewers' comments on the piece.

It seems that there is, as the saying goes, a failure to communicate, not an ethical problem (except, perhaps, the OP's submitting an article under peer review at a second journal without formally withdrawing it from the first.) The journal is probably not innocent in all of this. But, to be honest, the OP seems to have misunderstood something about the process, and then acted in an arrogant and/or self-righteous manner.

As to the question of writing a rebuttal. What does the OP want to rebut? Was the peer-review (not the editorial process, not the length, not the editor's manners, but the peer review itself) wrong? And even if so, who cares since the piece has already been published? I think what the OP wants to write is a letter of complaint. Other than being abusive and disrespectful, and being seen as lacking experience and manners, I don't see what would be gained by this.

My advice is to move on and, in the future, try to both have some flexibility and try to be more precise in  your communications.

[Hegemony]

Jerseyjay, it does not sound to me as if the OP submitted to a second journal before withdrawing the article from the first journal.

However, OP, I cannot see anything out of line about what the first journal did. It was unfortunate that it underwent a change of editorship in the middle of your process, but sometimes that happens. The same thing happened to me once with a book manuscript, which is even more time-consuming to revise than an article manuscript. I revised according to directions, but when I returned the manuscript, a new editor had taken over and restarted the whole process from scratch, new reviewers and all.  Lots of times new editors don't like the way the reviews were previously done, the questions the reviewers were asked to apply to the manuscript, and so forth. So they clean house and start from scratch. It's unfortunate for the authors who are in mid-process when this happens, but it's the luck of the draw. No one behaved unethically here.

However, if you send them a letter of rebuke, here's what will happen. The editor will think that you are way out of line (which will be true) and that you don't have any idea of how journals work (which will be true) and that you are a hothead to the extent that you are ready to damage your career (which will be true). They will almost certainly describe your letter to other editors and scientists, perhaps anonymously, but very possibly mentioning your name. The editor will be saying, "Watch out for this guy, he's very unprofessional, he concludes he's been wronged when innocuous things happen, and he goes ballistic about it." In this day of people going nuts with weaponry and all, they will grimace and remember your name and to be careful to steer very clear of you. They will be very polite and impersonal and when your name comes up in grant committees and the like, they will shake their heads with concern at the others.

Don't endanger your career this way. Please work hard to understand that this piece of luck with the journal was not unprofessional behavior, and that you are not being treated unfairly and you not deserve to carry a grievance. Prove my expectations wrong and acknowledge to yourself that you misread this one.

[Hibush]

I have a file with strongly worded letters of rebuke that I worked really hard on. None of them were sent, but they served their purpose well.

[research_prof]

Did you withdraw your submission? If the submission is not withdrawn, it is assumed to still be under review. It is entirely within the scope of the review process for the editor to request additional reviews. Responding to the initial review does not imply a guaranteed acceptance.

In my field, there are journals that do not let you withdraw your paper. I have tried to do that--they either never responded (both editors and administrative personnel) or they told me it's not possible. And these are considered as well-respected journals in my field.

[Ruralguy]

That doesn't make any sense. They certainly can't publish without your consent and probably a payment. I get that this happens after a review, but at some point, you have to be able to pull it.