When I submitted my first paper, I mailed it to Australia.
I recall putting four stapled copies in a manila envelope & dropping it in a post office box.
And waiting.
Months passed.
I stopped checking my mailbox.
One day, a nicely written letter invited a revision.
The editor asked me to respond, include a floppy disk with an electronic version with track changes on, & send the document back to Australia.
The editor urged me to use registered mail. You could not trust the post office after all.
1999 seems like a long time ago.
Today, after disclosing conflicts of interest & uploading a PDF, my team used the web to submit our paper to an editor in Australia.
Magic!
I anticipate that we will receive word on the outcome in weeks, not months, with, if lucky, a chance to respond to #reviewer comments.
On my morning walk, I reflected on how different the academic world is - I can't imagine today's early career #scholars waiting for the postal service to deliver manuscripts or navigating a world of slow review cycles.
I am concerned.
While we have sped up review processes, speed has not reaped increases in submission or review quality.
In fact, it might be the inverse.
Demands for speed create a bullwhip effect, with incentives for bad behavior. Some authors submit sloppy papers & quickly resubmit rejected papers. Some review board members submit Pro-forma reviews with insane demands on theory or method. Both cut corners to respond to demands for more papers and faster turnaround times.
Too much focus on speed has put more (possibly great) papers in the rubbish bin.
Yet, as an editor and author, returning to submitting papers by a slow boat to #australia doesn't seem like a good idea.
So what to do?
First, #editors need to stop pushing speed as a metric for a journal or a reviewer's performance. Often a pushed review board member will submit lower quality & meaner reviews. Thirty days to write a review is not reasonable.
Second, Academics need to stop comparing speed across #journals and fields. Communities need to discuss what "feels about right" for their discipline and reach a consensus on what is reasonable. #reasonable does not mean years.
Third, Authors and Editors need to acknowledge that review cycles take time. The difference between 60 and 90 days is inconsequential if it means authors receive better reviews. Reasonable means giving reviewers sufficient time.
Fourth, #Deans can remove pressure for speed by focusing on quality publications. Fewer submissions would remove pressure on journal throughput and result in better reviews. Reasonable expectations will lead to better work.
Addressing the negative bullwhip effect created by pressure for fast publication and reviews will take time.
It will take Authors, Editors, and Deans to work together to create reasonable expectations and strengthen #academic communities.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_reviewer-scholars-australia-activity-6912115017811161088-p5a4?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web
Comments