Went into manuscript tracker for the latest first author manuscript I put together. It's the one on the topic that I find totally uninteresting but which yielded some interesting results. Other than a delay getting it into the hands of the associate editor, things have been going smoothly. Maybe too smoothly. One of the reviewers took a total of five days to get their review back. Usually these things sit for a couple of weeks before the reviewer hands them in, and I'm wondering if this is a case of the jury not taking much time to deliberate.
I've got two likely scenarios running through my mind*:
1. Reviewer is someone I don't know, but didn't like the work and tubed it.
2. Reviewer is someone I do know and they gave me a favorable review.
I hope it's #2. What do you think?
*The ones I consider to be the most likely.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Well they must at least have found the title interesting enough to read it immediately, and then keep reading... I say it's a good sign!
Will you be able to tell which review is which once the other(s) come in and you get to see them?
I would take it as a good sign. my MS this spring went FAST and smooth. This latest one has been forgotten by a reviewer and the editor is trying to track them down and twist their arm to get the review back. it's been almost 3 months- I think that's way worse than getting review back in 5 days.
Cath: Yes, I believe I will be able to tell. This journal has them listed as Rev #1 and Rev #2 in Manuscript Tracker, and the reviews should come back similarly marked. Unless of course the Assoc Editor switches things around.
Soil Mama: Three months is a total farce, but I've been down that road as well. I do sometimes take up my allotted month, but I always get it back before 30 days is up. Why others can't do that is beyond me.
Post a Comment