When my mother was visiting, she borrowed my computer to finish up a review for an article. We talked about the article some, and about the review processes in her field versus mine. She mentioned that when she says that she will review an article, the journal usually gives her a deadline for when she has to finish the job. This particular journal gave her 3 weeks.
THREE WEEKS!
I submitted an article 3 weeks ago and have yet to get an acknowledgement of receipt!
THREE WEEKS!
I submitted an article 3 weeks ago and have yet to get an acknowledgement of receipt!
I'm also jealous! It's the same with husband: he either has accepted preprints or preprints in preparation. He seldom has preprints "under review". I get nervous if I don't have a preprint "under review".
ReplyDelete@Mathgirl
ReplyDeleteNow I am REALLY jealous of your husband. Only accepted preprints or preprints in preparation and only a few preprints under review!!
No rejected preprints? Damn, life is unfair :(
3-4 weeks is the norm in my field in terms of how long reviewers have to review -- but they always take longer. And editors take longer than that. I've turned in my reviews at the end of my 3 or 4 week period and then received notification of the editor's decision 1-2 full months later.
ReplyDelete@mocklion: Sorry, I didn't mean to say that all his preprints get accepted. In fact, he gets tons of rejections because they always try to publish in the best journals. But the rejections last very little as well: they submit to the next journal in the scale and repeat the process until the preprint gets accepted. And the whole point is that this process of reviewing is fast.
ReplyDelete@Mathgirl
ReplyDeleteI was just joking, :) As a former mathematician (or at least former wannabe mathematician :P ), I know there were times I could have suffered less if referees had been a wee bit faster.