Timeline for Paper submitted to a Nature sub-journal with 3 weeks without updates, what can it mean? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2023 at 22:27 | history | left closed in review |
Nobody Sursula Anton Menshov |
Original close reason(s) were not resolved | |
| Oct 6, 2023 at 4:07 | comment | added | Anyon | My impression is that the Nature journals have become slower in general, and papers now often sit with the editors for about 3 weeks. But I'm in a different field so YMMV. | |
| S Oct 6, 2023 at 3:45 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Oct 7, 2023 at 22:27 | |||||
| S Oct 6, 2023 at 3:45 | history | edited | CoffeaAndTee | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 808 characters in body
Added to review
|
| Sep 9, 2023 at 9:08 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @user3508551: You seem to have a different understanding of “being nothing” than me (and dictionaries). If you say that a duration is nothing, it is typically understood that the duration is negligible in the given context; not merely smaller than typical. If you can expect to hear from the journal after 45 days (which happens after what is called the first decision), three weeks is roughly half of that time. That’s far from nothing. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 23:51 | comment | added | user3508551 | @Wrzlprmft False and dishonest. It takes roughly 45 days for Nature to hear a first decision according to their own website. You know well that reviewing rarely stops after first decisions. I didn't say that nothing happens in 3 weeks, you're straw-manning. I really don't understand what you're doing here. My point, with the added context, is clear as daylight; 3 weeks since submission is nothing in the whole editorial process for any decent journal. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 18:20 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @user3508551: Unless your journal is a predatory journal, 3 weeks is objectively nothing for a journal, regardless what field it is. – Three weeks is the time some journals give their referees to review, including Nature. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 16:22 | comment | added | user3508551 | @Wrzlprmft I think my comment was clearly understood and provided the necessary context, you're reading too much. Unless your journal is a predatory journal, 3 weeks is objectively nothing for a journal, regardless what field it is. I gave ample anecdotal evidence where 1) I had papers accepted after <2.5 months 2) Papers rejected after 6 months 3) Stated that this is unusual, essentially dismissing the idea that time gives signal on how your paper is doing. It's a strange hill to die on. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 13:25 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @user3508551: Your first comment suggests that handling times of six months are nothing special and you literally wrote “3 weeks is nothing in journal time” without any specifiers, which makes this general. Moreover whether intended or not, this is how your comment was understood. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 12:31 | history | closed | Buffy paper-submission Users with the paper-submission badge can single-handedly close paper-submission questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed. | Duplicate of What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? How should I interpret a particular submission status? | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 12:17 | comment | added | user3508551 | @Wrzlprmft That’s such a strange comment. If anything, I’ve done exactly the opposite of a generalization. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 12:15 | comment | added | user3508551 | @Wrzlprmft where am I doing generalizations in my comment? | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 11:22 | answer | added | Wolfgang Bangerth | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 6:04 | history | edited | Sursula | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 143 characters in body; edited title
|
| Sep 8, 2023 at 5:23 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @user3508551: Please do not make any generalisations on paper handling time as those vary considerably between fields and journals. Six months of handling time would be more than excessive for Nature (or any sub-journal thereof). | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 5:21 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | Possible duplicate of: Is my paper under review (or similar) for too long and if yes, how should I react?. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 3:01 | comment | added | user3508551 | this is definitely not standard, but the point is it’s very hard to get any signal about how your paper is doing from the time it has been review. Sure, longer can mean better, but I’ve had papers accepted in top journals extremely fast (say 2.5 months). | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 2:55 | comment | added | CoffeaAndTee | Oh dear 6 months... Yea I'd better not thinking of it any more. Thanks for sharing your story and hope everything goes well! | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 2:48 | comment | added | user3508551 | I’ve had a paper desk rejected after 6 months. 3 weeks is nothing in journal time. Just forget about it and continue the good work. | |
| S Sep 8, 2023 at 2:44 | review | First questions | |||
| Sep 8, 2023 at 12:33 | |||||
| S Sep 8, 2023 at 2:44 | history | asked | CoffeaAndTee | CC BY-SA 4.0 |