Journal turnaround 12 months for first review

[foralurker]

Hi everyone! I'm trying to figure out if is this is normal or if there's some variable in my experience that causes this to keep happening.

I collect data during the academic year (YEAR 1) and do my writing during the summer. Manuscripts go out early fall (YEAR 2) and I won't hear back for 11 or 12 months with a decision until the following fall (YEAR 3). So, an entire year after writing the manuscript, I'm asked to submit changes and these make their way back around for a second review + decision sometime in late spring semester or early summer and we go to press.

I research an aspect of college teaching and I'm publishing in Open Access journals on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Is this an Open Access journal problem? A problem among SoTL journals? Or is this timeline typical for everyone?

It's impacting my productivity and I can't figure out how to get into a rhythm if that makes any sense. I was averaging one peer reviewed article per year, but the article I just got accepted won't go to press until 2024. I have no publications for 2022 and 2023. I'm kind of freaking out right now.

[Parasaurolophus]

I can't say whether it's typical for everyone. I can say that it's not typical in philosophy, although our review times are highly variable and some journals are known to take between six months and a year or more to render an initial verdict. I can also say that very long review times are extremely common for logic papers and my understanding is that they are pretty common in mathematics, too, because of all the proof-checking that's required (not to mention, in some cases, familiarizing oneself with new tools and techniques developed in and for that particular paper). I have no idea about SOTL, although I confess that every time I see the acronym I think 'shit out of luck'! Surely there are solid journals out there that work faster?

I think that if review times are this long and if you only really work on one paper at a time, so that there are only ever one or two under review at the same time, you're bound to have fallow publication years on the CV. In that case, it takes very little to interrupt your flow, e.g. a single R&R that takes longer than usual for you or them to turn around. If you don't want any gaps on your CV, you need to have several papers out at the same time. You can also paper over some gaps with small publications (e.g. invited pieces, book reviews, reply pieces, etc.), or with a glut of publications or a book the following year.

I don't know what that would require from you. I guess it probably means collecting data for multiple projects more or less simultaneously, or finding ways to reuse existing data--or writing some theory-oriented work that doesn't require data. But you could also consider starting to throw in book reviews and reply pieces to tide you over, and start paying special attention to calls for contributions to edited volumes, special issues, etc.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Seems like a long wait time to me, but not unheard of and may be the norm in your field. I think it is outrageous that reviewers drag their feet for so long, but it is what it is.

If you don't want any gaps on your CV, you need to have several papers out at the same time.

This is good advice, op. You should always have several projects going on at once and multiple papers under review. That way if one doesn't work out or if the delays are significant, it won't make or break you.

[foralurker]

Thanks for your replies. Here's what I have in the hopper at the moment:

- One in press after a R&R.
- One in second round review.
- One dataset undergoing qualitative analysis with my first round of coders.
- A fruitless quantitative student survey on a teaching technique with an n=10 that's destined for the garbage.
- Two more studies with associated "workshop interventions" that to date only have 2-3 faculty participants each. I've declared one of these dead, about to throw the towel in on the other.
- A draft IRB application for a fairly straightforward qual interview study on faculty experiences with [phenomenon].



I just started at my new university. Trying to decide what's next, what I should just walk away from, or if I want to walk away from all research entirely. This is my second non-TT position as instructional faculty. My last R1 expected research to the tune of one pub or presentation every three years. My new R1 says research is encouraged but not required. Most of my colleagues have stayed active with their research agendas as a safety net of sorts, though they say they have no plans of leaving.

I have no idea about SOTL, although I confess that every time I see the acronym I think 'shit out of luck'!

In all fairness, my SoTL is starting to make me feel like I'm shit outta luck!

[Hegemony]

It's not optimum, but it's not atypical. If you ask around, you can figure out which journals are known to have a short turnaround time, and submit to them. But the safest policy is to have a bunch in the pipeline. Say you submit an article every six months. Even if they all take 18 months (say) to come out, you will soon have an article coming out every six months. Or even if they all take two years to come out.

A lot of people do give up on publication if they find a secure job that doesn't reward it. My view is that publications expand your options, and are therefore always helpful. But I like writing and publishing. If you dislike it, it may not be worth the trouble.

[foralurker]

A lot of people do give up on publication if they find a secure job that doesn't reward it. My view is that publications expand your options, and are therefore always helpful. But I like writing and publishing. If you dislike it, it may not be worth the trouble.

I also like writing and publishing. It's why I went back for my PhD. I've had a tough go of getting projects off the ground (projects that I thought had merit and was probably too passionate about) and these very slow turn-arounds didn't help either.
 
My new job has made it pretty clear that research isn't going to be rewarded at all and barely acknowledged. I can't fathom what they're measuring my performance on aside from student course evals. Yikes. My gut is telling me I'd regret it if I walked away from research. I'm also looking at this two year hole in my CV and I know that's what has me upset today.

[pgher]

That used to be typical in my field. Then bibliometrics came along, and all of the editors figured out that more papers get cited quickly if papers are published quickly. Huh. Now, 8 weeks to first review is typical. But a few journals in adjacent fields haven't figured that out yet, so total review time (including a couple rounds of revision) is on the order of a year. I haven't heard of any that are a year to first review.

[Morden]

I've published in SoTL open access journals, and I regularly review for them. I've noticed that since COVID it's been taking longer for them to review articles because they have difficulty finding reviewers. But 12 months is a long time for a SoTL journal; it's not all that long for an English journal.

[jerseyjay]

I have no idea if it is typical in your field. In the fields that I publish in (broadly speaking, history and literary criticism) it is, unfortunately, very common.

At the moment, I have an article I submitted in September 2022 still out. Then I have three articles that have been out for less than a year. However, since each has got rejected from at least one journal, it has been more than a year since I submitted them in some form or another. I also have an article that I submitted probably two years ago, that has been accepted, and for which I have even checked the proofs, but which has still not been published. In the past, I have submitted articles, have the journal sit on it for a year, then desk reject it. All this makes for a somewhat strange CV, in the sense that I tend to regularly produce articles, but they get published at irregular intervals.

I am already tenured, so it is less a problem for me to wait a bit, and I have submitted to journals knowing that it may take longer. For somebody on the tenure track it is nerve-racking. (Although I also benefited from it: I submitted two papers that had not been accepted when I got my position, but by the time they were published I was several years into the tenure track, which allowed me to add them to my productivity, something that may not be kosher in your field.)

The two ways to deal with this are, first, submit to journals that have decent turnaround times, or at least avoid journals that are known to take forever. This requires discussing with colleagues to find out which journals are best. Second, and more important, make sure you are always working on something, i.e., you do not just sit and wait for a decision.

In a broader sense, this demonstrates that the peer review system is broken, in part because it involves a crucial step in the process being done by people who are overworked and are not getting paid. Yes, theoretically, peer review is something that is part of one's job as a full-time academic, but it is almost always done in one's spare time, at the expense of other work, and the number of full-time academics (at least in history) is at an all-time low.

[Sun_Worshiper]

In a broader sense, this demonstrates that the peer review system is broken, in part because it involves a crucial step in the process being done by people who are overworked and are not getting paid. Yes, theoretically, peer review is something that is part of one's job as a full-time academic, but it is almost always done in one's spare time, at the expense of other work, and the number of full-time academics (at least in history) is at an all-time low.

Fair enough if we are talking about adjuncts, but full timers are submitting to journals then they should also be reviewing.

[Ruralguy]

That's how I see it--as long as I am active in submitting or intend to be, I review, though there are some opportunities I should have declined due to insufficient expertise in the hyperspecialized nature of the article.
It actually doesn't really take that much time if its a familiar subject. Of course if its unfamiliar, its more reasonable to refuse.

I submitted to a particular journal about 3 months ago, and it is in reviewer limbo since I think they require 3 outside reviewers. Its essentially a pocket reject after a bit. If they don't find reviewers in 6 months, I can probably assume they never will.

[jerseyjay]

Fair enough if we are talking about adjuncts, but full timers are submitting to journals then they should also be reviewing.

I agree that full-timers should do peer review, especially if they are submitting to journals.

That said, 10 years ago, my department had about ten people. Now it is down to three people. The English department is down from 30 something to about 15 people. The modern language department is down from about 5 full timers to 2. Those that are left have an increased service and, often, teaching load. In theory, peer-review should be considered part of a full-timer's job. However, it really is not considered that, so it has to be done on the side.

Meanwhile, the competition for those jobs that are left are getting more intense, resulting in more journal submissions. (When I was a grad student, grad students rarely submitted articles. Now to get hired you need at least a few publications.)

Thus the number of submissions has gone up while the amount of available peer reviewing (i.e., total number of reviewers times the amount of time each has to do review) has gone down. This is one reason it takes so long to get an article reviewed.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Fair enough if we are talking about adjuncts, but full timers are submitting to journals then they should also be reviewing.

I agree that full-timers should do peer review, especially if they are submitting to journals.

That said, 10 years ago, my department had about ten people. Now it is down to three people. The English department is down from 30 something to about 15 people. The modern language department is down from about 5 full timers to 2. Those that are left have an increased service and, often, teaching load. In theory, peer-review should be considered part of a full-timer's job. However, it really is not considered that, so it has to be done on the side.

Meanwhile, the competition for those jobs that are left are getting more intense, resulting in more journal submissions. (When I was a grad student, grad students rarely submitted articles. Now to get hired you need at least a few publications.)

Thus the number of submissions has gone up while the amount of available peer reviewing (i.e., total number of reviewers times the amount of time each has to do review) has gone down. This is one reason it takes so long to get an article reviewed.

These are good/fair points, although the degree of adjunctification varies across fields.

Editors have a role to play too, by desk rejecting more pieces that don't have a prayer of publication.

[foralurker]

Editors have a role to play too, by desk rejecting more pieces that don't have a prayer of publication.

I have a journal that sends me an article to review about once a year. Each time it's a poorly written piece in need of a desk rejection. Two of the three I've reviewed looked like something written by a grad student with no help from their advisor. I like this editor and have gotten to know him well enough. I just don't know why he keeps sending these things to me instead of rejecting them.

[Parasaurolophus]

I dunno about you guys, but for us, average time to review has declined substantially over the last fifteen years. It used to be that you could expect six months or more practically everywhere, but now three months is the maximum at most journals (with many much faster, and a few much slower). It's not because there are more philosophers out there, or because submission volumes are lower (they're a lot higher).

I don't know what explains it, but I suspect it's just a cultural shift. More of us are just completing our reports sooner. Which isn't hard; really, when you sit down to do it, for most stuff (not logic or math!) it's just a matter of a couple of hours to read it and a couple more to write the report. I complete pretty much all my reports within a week.