Manuscript revision

[jerseyjay]

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[...]. I decided to drop the submission.

This is what I mean by the fact that the OP seems to have trouble with clear communication. I  cannot figure out if the m.s. was withdrawn before or after it was submitted elsewhere, or whether the article was ever formally withdrawn. Evidently the editor from the first journal does not think so, if he sent it out for review. From the editor's point of view, such behavior is unethical, as well as a big waste of time. At some point the OP should have sent an email like this:

"While I appreciate the time and effort put into reviewing this article, I have decided to withdraw it and submit it elsewhere."

But based on the posts in this forum, the OP seems to have some trouble writing such clear and direct statements.

I am not sure I accept that there are journals that do not allow the author to withdraw. First, what happens if the author cannot defend the data, etc. Second, every journal I have always published in requires signing a copyright form. I admit that different disciplines have their own rules and perhaps it is not standard to withdraw articles.

I also want to say that while I agree that the journal did nothing unethical, the whole episode does seem to underline the rather arbitrary and unstable nature of academic publishing. So while I don't think the OP should take out their frustration on the editorial staff of the journal, I do empathize with their frustration over the process in general.

[Ruralguy]

Yes, I've had similar things happen, so I sympathize for sure. But you have to learn to roll with the punches, OP. Not every tiny slight has to lead  to outrage. You can be privately angry over this sort of thing, or tell a friend or tell us, but for heaven's sake don't mention it to the journal. Also, learn to suffer fools gladly, or at least, patiently. Not everyone is a far out super genius looking to change our understanding of the world. Some people are just chugging a long at a job. Some are extremely good and smart. Others just aren't. But you have to be patient anyway.

[Kron3007]

There is also the fact that during the review process there is a section where the reviewers leave comments that the editor can see and you cannot.  It is always possible that these comments could trigger a second round of reviews depending on their nature and your response to reviewer comments. 

I agree that the timeline you experienced is unfortunate and not cool, but otherwise there is nothing to see here.

[the-tenure-track-prof]

Thanks. The content of what I tell here is not what I say to the journal to state the obvious!. The reason that I brought this issue to this forum is to see whether others had similar experiences with journals not responding to inquires for two years, and what they did about it. I make my decision whether or not to revise as every author can decide that and I do not need to tell them to state the obvious until I decide to revise.
I have mentioned several times that the manuscript was not withdrawn. The journal simply stopped communicating about the status of the manuscript after I received "accepted with revisions".

I have not responded to the email from the EIC. I decided to pursue the publication with the other journal. Thanks.

[jerseyjay]

The content of what I tell here is not what I say to the journal to state the obvious!.

Well yes, but one assumes that the way you write on this forum is more or less the way you write to an editor. And, to be honest, I find it hard to parse your writing. It combines unclarity and frustration with a mixture of passive aggressiveness and abusiveness. Assuming that this is not your intent, this style might not result in what you want it to.

I have mentioned several times that the manuscript was not withdrawn. The journal simply stopped communicating about the status of the manuscript after I received "accepted with revisions".

I have not responded to the email from the EIC. I decided to pursue the publication with the other journal. Thanks.

While there is a delay in communications, it does not seem that the journal stopped communicating--how else did you receive the second set of reviewers' comments? If you have an article under review at a journal, sending it off to another journal for review without withdrawing if from the first journal--even if you feel the process is taking longer than it should--violates the norms (ethics) of peer review, at least in my discipline. You would be within your rights to withdraw the paper if you want to, but you need to do that.

Again, I think much of the problem is that, besides the journal taking longer than you would like, you have not adequately communicated with the journal, and instead simmered in your frustration. This is not productive, in my opinion.

[Ruralguy]

Yes, though I assumed your actual communication was less indignant than what you wrote here, it did seem from your first post that you were more or less narrating your communication with the journal. However, on a second pass, that narration seems like it was more of a commentary for our benefit. But, as other note, that and other points aren't clear.

In any case, what's done is done, but be a bit more careful about submitting to a journal a paper that is already being considered by another.

[Kron3007]

The content of what I tell here is not what I say to the journal to state the obvious!.

Well yes, but one assumes that the way you write on this forum is more or less the way you write to an editor. And, to be honest, I find it hard to parse your writing. It combines unclarity and frustration with a mixture of passive aggressiveness and abusiveness. Assuming that this is not your intent, this style might not result in what you want it to.

I have mentioned several times that the manuscript was not withdrawn. The journal simply stopped communicating about the status of the manuscript after I received "accepted with revisions".

I have not responded to the email from the EIC. I decided to pursue the publication with the other journal. Thanks.

While there is a delay in communications, it does not seem that the journal stopped communicating--how else did you receive the second set of reviewers' comments? If you have an article under review at a journal, sending it off to another journal for review without withdrawing if from the first journal--even if you feel the process is taking longer than it should--violates the norms (ethics) of peer review, at least in my discipline. You would be within your rights to withdraw the paper if you want to, but you need to do that.

Again, I think much of the problem is that, besides the journal taking longer than you would like, you have not adequately communicated with the journal, and instead simmered in your frustration. This is not productive, in my opinion.

More than violating norms, most journals require you to verify that your manuscript has not been submitted elsewhere for publication when you submit (at least in my field). 

I have had a similar experience where my paper went for multiple rounds of review and was transferred to a new editor.  It sucked, but can happen.  In my case, it was a controversial paper that was ultimately published, but the process was painfully slow.  This is one reason I like to post pre-prints now.  It makes sure the information gets out in a timely fashion while the often slow peer review process chugs along.   

[aside]

The reason that I brought this issue to this forum is to see whether others had similar experiences with journals not responding to inquires for two years, and what they did about it.

I've had only two similar experiences in many years of submitting to journals.

In the first, an article was accepted by the reviewers and editor of a major journal, but sat in the pipeline after acceptance for so long that when a new editor came onboard, they felt it needed to be reviewed again for currency.  This time it came back with suggestions for revision I was not willing to make, so I moved on.

In the second, I submitted an article to a major journal in my field and, after their initial acknowledgement, could not get a firm answer from them about its status for quite some time.  I eventually gave up and moved on, as that project had grown into a book for which the original paper formed the core.  Years later they wrote back, apologized, and asked if my article was still available for publication.  I said no, because it had been superseded by further work.

Both of these cases were highly exceptional in my experience, which generally has been quite good in working with journals.  Neither case was unethical on their part (although perhaps incompetent in the latter case), and I simply replied in a professional manner.  Striking back might feel good, but it serves no other useful purpose in such cases.

[theteacher]

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.

I find this funny :)

OP, I feel you. But, please take care of your health and sanity. At the end of the day, it's just part of the job.

[mleok]

I once withdrew a paper from a journal after being informed it hadn't yet been sent out for review after a year, and submitted it to another journal. Funnily enough, the paper was then accepted by the first journal without revisions a few weeks later, which really resulted in a pretty awkward situation.

[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.

I find this funny :)

OP, I feel you. But, please take care of your health and sanity. At the end of the day, it's just part of the job.

My method is helpful for health and sanity! Also for moving on to productive activities. Highly recommended.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Sending the manuscript to a new set of reviewers after the first round is not good practice, imo, but it is also within the boundaries of what the editor is allowed to do. Nonresponse to emails is also annoying and unprofessional, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is unethical. On the other side, OP's repeated emails after two months demanding a decision because the manuscript has already gone through one round of review shows a certain misunderstanding for how the review process works and may be seen as annoying and unprofessional by the editor.

[Ancient Fellow]

This thread provided an interesting read. Editorial commitments seem to shift more frequently than in the past, which many organizations may view as a good thing. I suppose that a general principle regarding editorial decisions that are contingent in any way is to strike while the iron is hot, because those contingent decisions may only hold for the window of time that person is editor. I've never yet had a new editor change plans on me, but researchers should take the possibility into consideration.

[Hibush]

This thread provided an interesting read. Editorial commitments seem to shift more frequently than in the past, which many organizations may view as a good thing. I suppose that a general principle regarding editorial decisions that are contingent in any way is to strike while the iron is hot, because those contingent decisions may only hold for the window of time that person is editor. I've never yet had a new editor change plans on me, but researchers should take the possibility into consideration.

Would it be going to far to ask upon receiving a decision notice, "So how long will you be staying on as editor?"

[mleok]

Thanks. The content of what I tell here is not what I say to the journal to state the obvious!. The reason that I brought this issue to this forum is to see whether others had similar experiences with journals not responding to inquires for two years, and what they did about it. I make my decision whether or not to revise as every author can decide that and I do not need to tell them to state the obvious until I decide to revise.
I have mentioned several times that the manuscript was not withdrawn. The journal simply stopped communicating about the status of the manuscript after I received "accepted with revisions".

I have not responded to the email from the EIC. I decided to pursue the publication with the other journal. Thanks.

Even if a journal requests for major revisions, you still have to formally withdraw the paper before submitting it elsewhere. At least from where I'm sitting, that's a major problem on your part.