It's probably a more responsible thing for the reviewers to do than to say they will do the review and then not get around to it for 5 or 6 months, as has happened to me several times. When I was editing a journal, there were certain people who I stopped asking for reviews because I knew from their past history you would have to keep hounding them to get them to do it - even after reminders saying "how would you feel if this happened to your mansucript?" This is a public responsibility that the scientific community depends on us to do, and too many of us are shirking this public service.
> Hi, Sarah, > The experience you report has greater value than that of > entertainment, because it raises some issues for further discussion. > > 1. The academic/scientific publishing process does not follow the familiar > rules of a for-profit business. Imaging walking into a bank to make a > withdrawal or deposit and being told, "Sorry, we're pretty busy right now. > Why not try us in a few days?" > > 2. On the other hand, the journal acted responsibly in not merely sitting > on > the submission. This leaves the author the option of seeking publication > elsewhere. This "elsewhere" might be a less appropriate or less > prestigious > journal, but if enough of this sort of thing occurs, appropriateness and > prestige can shift. > > 3. The potential reviewers in this case performed conscientiously, if not > very usefully. It probably often happens that reviewers take on reviews > that they are really too busy for, and as a result do sloppy review work. > This seems like the very situation where reviewers might go with their gut > reactions (i.e., go with their biases) rather taking the time for the > mental > discipline of really thinking things through, of responding to little > niggling doubts that, if explored, might reveal possibilities for new > understanding latent the author's work. > > 4. Perhaps this journal should increase its stable of reviewers. Maybe it > is/was relying too heavily on the same bunch of people. Resolving this > problem might also get some new blood and new thinking into the system and > loosen up the old-boys network, if such is operative. > > Any thoughts? > > Martin M. Meiss > > 2009/7/13 Sarah Goslee <sgos...@psu.edu> > >> Just for entertainment value, here is a message I received a few weeks >> ago >> from a major ecology journal at a major publisher (names removed, as the >> matter was resolved). If it is the case that this kind of thing can >> actually >> happen, something needs to change. >> >> -- >> >> Dear AUTHOR, >> >> I trust you are doing well. >> >> As you will notice, there are no reviewers assigned to your paper as of >> this date. We tried our best to speed up the review process by sending >> reminders and follow-up emails to referees. Regrettably, most of them >> are >> too busy to handle your paper at this time. >> >> In light of this, we would like to advise you to withdraw your paper. >> However, we also leave you to re-submit if you wish to do so. >> >> We would appreciate if you could let us know your decision within 14 >> days. >> >> Thank you very much for your prompt response on this matter. >> >> -- >> >> The first question asked by all of the colleagues I discussed it with >> was >> whether this was really from the journal. It is a legitimate email. >> >> Interesting, no? >> >> Sarah >> >> -- >> Dr. Sarah Goslee >> USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit >> Adjunct Associate Professor, Crop and Soil Sciences Department >> Penn State >> Building 3702, Curtin Road >> University Park, PA 16802 >> Phone: 814-863-0887 >> Fax: 814-863-0935 >> sgos...@psu.edu >> >
