Chromatography Forum

Hi All,

I am a quite new one for the chromatography field. I submitted a paper for JCA two months ago and don't receive any reply so far. Is it normal for JCA publication? How long is the review round usually?

Thanks in advance!

Don't know about that particular journal, but it does take a while. Then they'll ask you to make changes, then quite a few months later it will appear.

I had a paper take three months at J. Chrom. A for review and the revised version went back two months ago. I'mm still waiting for that. The reviewers have a deadline - and some take the full time...

Please clarify: you should have gotten a confirmation e-mail that you have submitted the paper. If this is the case, then you just will have to be patient. While I am reviewing papers typically in under 4 days, other reviewers may take their time, or the reviewer invited first was not available, and the editor had to search for another reviewer. While there are deadlines for the reviewers, it is not uncommon to wait for some three months for feedback.

You can always send in an inquiry...

Thank you for the reply. I got the confirmation mail in the end of May. It seems like I have to wait longer.

It can last more than three months so you will probably see it end of August- beginning of September.

I am just curious to know why it can talk so long? I heard you would usually get the reply within 8 weeks. It is because many people go on vacation in summer, or it is because of some other reasons like your paper level?

You only need one reviewer who lets the paper sit on the corner of his/her desk with much good intention and no action.

I also had a paper to the same journal take over 3months for initial review. Once I had revised following initial reviewers suggestions, the process took about 3 weeks until the paper was available online.

Anthony.

As both an author and a reviewer I know the feelings both of waiting for feedback that seems to take ages (and in the pre-electronic age it could take two years from submission to publication) and of having papers needing review when I have other things that also need doing.

As an author, and especially a new one, your paper is special to you, but once it gets into the system it is just one among dozens, or hundreds. It is an idiosyncracy of the scientific peer review system that reviewers very rarely get paid, or if they do it is nowhere near minimum wage for the time spent. So although the paper was the sole focus of your efforts, probably for weeks or months, harsh reality dictates that the reviewers are not going to drop what they are doing just to pay attention to it. It gets done when there is a gap, and with other pressures on time that might be this week, next week or the week after. Most journals allow aboout a month (some have fast track reviewing for rapid communications), if one reviewer drops out that means two consecutive months, which feels like ages if you are the author.

If it is any comfort, it usually takes a lot less time to recommend rejection of complete rubbish than it does to go through a good paper to make it even better.

Peter