Mixing
Why would a small paper (10 pages) with an important result take over a year to get accepted?
Below is an example that I had in mind, but my question is more general: does the reputation of some authors cause their papers to be prioritized for review sooner than other important papers, e.g. the paper "primes is in p" (link below), which was written by unknown, Indian grad students? In this specific example, a year seems like a long time to review an important -- and very short -- paper.
http://annals.math.princeton.edu/2004/160-2/p12
Milestones
Received: 24 January 2002
Accepted: 21 March 2003
Published online: September 2004
publications mathematics peer-review united-states
asked Jan 6 at 15:15
user102748user102748
10413
|
show 5 more comments
Below is an example that I had in mind, but my question is more general: does the reputation of some authors cause their papers to be prioritized for review sooner than other important papers, e.g. the paper "primes is in p" (link below), which was written by unknown, Indian grad students? In this specific example, a year seems like a long time to review an important -- and very short -- paper.
http://annals.math.princeton.edu/2004/160-2/p12
Milestones
Received: 24 January 2002
Accepted: 21 March 2003
Published online: September 2004
publications mathematics peer-review united-states
asked Jan 6 at 15:15
user102748user102748
10413
12
It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
– Pieter Naaijkens
Jan 6 at 15:30
6
10 pages isn’t a small paper in my field (bioinformatics and computational biology) — on the contrary, it would be extremely long (that said, most good papers easily have that many pages of supplementary information but these are never counted). But even in mathematics, a proof spanning several pages will take time to proofread, correct, etc.
– Konrad Rudolph
Jan 6 at 19:06
15
What makes you think this is unusual? The Annals of Math takes a long time to review papers. It is considered the most prestigious and rigorous journal in pure mathematics. I've seen famous papers that took 5 years or more to be published in it. One year may be extremely quick for them.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:55
9
This is not, of course, a thorough analysis, but looking in the same volume (160), I glanced through maybe 10 or so other papers, and they all take at least a year to be accepted, and several 2-3 years.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:59
5
"Primes is in P" They sure is.
– Joel Reyes Noche
Jan 7 at 5:13
|
show 5 more comments
Below is an example that I had in mind, but my question is more general: does the reputation of some authors cause their papers to be prioritized for review sooner than other important papers, e.g. the paper "primes is in p" (link below), which was written by unknown, Indian grad students? In this specific example, a year seems like a long time to review an important -- and very short -- paper.
http://annals.math.princeton.edu/2004/160-2/p12
Milestones
Received: 24 January 2002
Accepted: 21 March 2003
Published online: September 2004
publications mathematics peer-review united-states
asked Jan 6 at 15:15
user102748user102748
10413
Below is an example that I had in mind, but my question is more general: does the reputation of some authors cause their papers to be prioritized for review sooner than other important papers, e.g. the paper "primes is in p" (link below), which was written by unknown, Indian grad students? In this specific example, a year seems like a long time to review an important -- and very short -- paper.
http://annals.math.princeton.edu/2004/160-2/p12
Milestones
Received: 24 January 2002
Accepted: 21 March 2003
Published online: September 2004
publications mathematics peer-review united-states
publications mathematics peer-review united-states
asked Jan 6 at 15:15
user102748user102748
10413
asked Jan 6 at 15:15
user102748user102748
10413
asked Jan 6 at 15:15
user102748user102748
10413
asked Jan 6 at 15:15
user102748user102748
10413
asked Jan 6 at 15:15
user102748user102748
10413
10413
12
It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
– Pieter Naaijkens
Jan 6 at 15:30
6
10 pages isn’t a small paper in my field (bioinformatics and computational biology) — on the contrary, it would be extremely long (that said, most good papers easily have that many pages of supplementary information but these are never counted). But even in mathematics, a proof spanning several pages will take time to proofread, correct, etc.
– Konrad Rudolph
Jan 6 at 19:06
15
What makes you think this is unusual? The Annals of Math takes a long time to review papers. It is considered the most prestigious and rigorous journal in pure mathematics. I've seen famous papers that took 5 years or more to be published in it. One year may be extremely quick for them.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:55
9
This is not, of course, a thorough analysis, but looking in the same volume (160), I glanced through maybe 10 or so other papers, and they all take at least a year to be accepted, and several 2-3 years.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:59
5
"Primes is in P" They sure is.
– Joel Reyes Noche
Jan 7 at 5:13
|
show 5 more comments
12
It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
– Pieter Naaijkens
Jan 6 at 15:30
6
10 pages isn’t a small paper in my field (bioinformatics and computational biology) — on the contrary, it would be extremely long (that said, most good papers easily have that many pages of supplementary information but these are never counted). But even in mathematics, a proof spanning several pages will take time to proofread, correct, etc.
– Konrad Rudolph
Jan 6 at 19:06
15
What makes you think this is unusual? The Annals of Math takes a long time to review papers. It is considered the most prestigious and rigorous journal in pure mathematics. I've seen famous papers that took 5 years or more to be published in it. One year may be extremely quick for them.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:55
9
This is not, of course, a thorough analysis, but looking in the same volume (160), I glanced through maybe 10 or so other papers, and they all take at least a year to be accepted, and several 2-3 years.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:59
5
"Primes is in P" They sure is.
– Joel Reyes Noche
Jan 7 at 5:13
12
12
It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
– Pieter Naaijkens
Jan 6 at 15:30
It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
– Pieter Naaijkens
Jan 6 at 15:30
6
6
10 pages isn’t a small paper in my field (bioinformatics and computational biology) — on the contrary, it would be extremely long (that said, most good papers easily have that many pages of supplementary information but these are never counted). But even in mathematics, a proof spanning several pages will take time to proofread, correct, etc.
– Konrad Rudolph
Jan 6 at 19:06
10 pages isn’t a small paper in my field (bioinformatics and computational biology) — on the contrary, it would be extremely long (that said, most good papers easily have that many pages of supplementary information but these are never counted). But even in mathematics, a proof spanning several pages will take time to proofread, correct, etc.
– Konrad Rudolph
Jan 6 at 19:06
15
15
What makes you think this is unusual? The Annals of Math takes a long time to review papers. It is considered the most prestigious and rigorous journal in pure mathematics. I've seen famous papers that took 5 years or more to be published in it. One year may be extremely quick for them.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:55
What makes you think this is unusual? The Annals of Math takes a long time to review papers. It is considered the most prestigious and rigorous journal in pure mathematics. I've seen famous papers that took 5 years or more to be published in it. One year may be extremely quick for them.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:55
9
9
This is not, of course, a thorough analysis, but looking in the same volume (160), I glanced through maybe 10 or so other papers, and they all take at least a year to be accepted, and several 2-3 years.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:59
This is not, of course, a thorough analysis, but looking in the same volume (160), I glanced through maybe 10 or so other papers, and they all take at least a year to be accepted, and several 2-3 years.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:59
5
5
"Primes is in P" They sure is.
– Joel Reyes Noche
Jan 7 at 5:13
"Primes is in P" They sure is.
– Joel Reyes Noche
Jan 7 at 5:13
|
show 5 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
There can be many reasons why a paper takes a long time to be published. The `official' reason is that the paper needs to be carefully reviewed and considered before the result can be accepted for publication; the more prestigious the venue, the more care is taken in reviewing the results. However, there are other factors that come into play
- This is in my view the most important: reviewers take a long time to get to finish their review, especially in high-quality venues. One should remember that reviewing is unpaid labour that academics provide to the academic publication industry for (what is apparently) the right to publish. There is no real incentive to review; there are meta considerations, like standing in the community, that depend on how much you do it, but I know several successful academics that do the bare minimum.
- Good results in bad packaging: even a groundbreaking set of results can be poorly structured, which would result in delay in publication (if not outright rejection).
- Politics and names do have some (minor) effect: having prominent authors/friends on the editorial board can result in a slightly faster turnaround. However, I have not heard of cases where editors have unethically accepted the work submitted by their friends, or rejected/dragged on the review process for the work of competitors.
answered Jan 6 at 15:31
SparkSpark
3,0431318
2
I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
– Buffy
Jan 6 at 16:03
16
Not at all - I'm not talking about (overtly) unethical behaviour, but yes, I have heard of instances where papers were stuck on administrative stuff and got pushed forward by a letter to the editor. The likelihood of editors responding to requests from authors they know is higher than to those they don't (although ideally it should be the same).
– Spark
Jan 6 at 16:12
8
I hope you are just guessing Mmm I think assuming 'friends' would play no role in science would simply be naive. Expect it to play a role everywhere.
– Stijn de Witt
Jan 6 at 23:32
@Spark And those papers would probably have been pushed forward regardless of whether or not the editor knew or knew of the authors. Sure, people are naturally biased towards helping their friends a little bit more and a little bit faster than people they don't know, but you make it sound like knowing somebody on the editorial board is the gateway to magically speedy paper acceptance.
– David Richerby
Jan 7 at 10:39
If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
– Spark
Jan 7 at 12:58
add a comment |
You don't know what the timeline really was like. For all you know, it could've been this:
Authors submit paper: 24 January 2002
First decision made: 24 February 2002
Revision submitted: 3 March 2003
Final decision made: 21 March 2003
First proofs sent to author: 2 April 2003
Proofs received back from the author: August 2004
Don't automatically assume that long review times are always the journal's fault. Sometimes the author just takes a long time to respond. Here's an extreme example.
It's been more than three years since a decision was made on this manuscript, and the authors still haven't submitted a revision. At this point, they probably will never submit a revision. But if they do: the only fair submission date is 21 March 2015, and it will look like the review took a fantastically long time.
answered Jan 6 at 18:57
AllureAllure
29.2k1689141
add a comment |
does the reputation of some authors cause their papers to be prioritized for review sooner than other important papers[?]
There isn't really such a thing as "prioritized for review". In most cases, the time it takes to find reviewers is much shorter than the time taken for those reviewers to do their work. Even if the editor says, "Wow, this paper is important – I'd better find reviewers as fast as I can!", that probably wouldn't make much difference to the total turn-around time.
e.g. the paper "primes is in p", which was written by unknown, Indian grad students
Maninindra Agrawal was a full professor at the time, not an unknown grad student.
answered Jan 6 at 18:46
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
29.2k659121
add a comment |
The Annals of Mathematics is the most prestigious mathematical journal. It has very strict standards, and it often does triple reviews. So, the editor has to find three willing referees among top mathematicians in the area. These are usually very busy people, so it is no surprise that the whole process takes a while. Besides the fact that from "received" to "accepted" there may have been a request for a revision. In all, it doesn't sound like a lot of time, even if not ideal.
As an anecdote about this journal, I know about very good mathematicians who have submitted their best work to the Annals, and the report has been "good work, but not up to standards".
answered Jan 7 at 0:12
Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami
3,0911220
add a comment |
I doubt that the reputation of the author has a large effect in general, especially at the review stage. It might if the paper suggests an especially important result. In that case, a quick read and the likelihood that it is correct will motivate the editor and reviewers to get it finished quickly. But the sheer volume of submissions suggests that the effect is small, and rare.
More likely, delays are natural. If the topic is obscure it may be hard to find appropriate reviewers. If the result is a small contribution, there will be little incentive to advance it over others. Sometimes the paper requires additional checking, if it isn't especially self-contained or if the techniques used are non-standard.
Moreover, the editor doesn't have a lot of control over the work habits or schedules of the reviewers as they are usually unpaid volunteers. Academic schedules get in the way of doing things quickly as does the too common absent mindedness of some professors. Sometimes the reviews come back to the editor in a way that it is hard to make a decision and the paper is sent out to others so that the editor gets a clearer picture. Sometimes reviewer conflicts need to be addressed internally.
Once accepted, the delays are usually just caused by scheduling. For print journals, especially, where overall page limits put in a constraint, as well as the fact that some editors may want to bring similarly themed papers into a single volume. At this point, of course, it may be desirable to think about the reputation of the authors and so an unknown author with a minor result might get delayed a bit.
answered Jan 6 at 15:36
BuffyBuffy
42k10138217
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122621%2fwhy-would-a-small-paper-10-pages-with-an-important-result-take-over-a-year-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There can be many reasons why a paper takes a long time to be published. The `official' reason is that the paper needs to be carefully reviewed and considered before the result can be accepted for publication; the more prestigious the venue, the more care is taken in reviewing the results. However, there are other factors that come into play
- This is in my view the most important: reviewers take a long time to get to finish their review, especially in high-quality venues. One should remember that reviewing is unpaid labour that academics provide to the academic publication industry for (what is apparently) the right to publish. There is no real incentive to review; there are meta considerations, like standing in the community, that depend on how much you do it, but I know several successful academics that do the bare minimum.
- Good results in bad packaging: even a groundbreaking set of results can be poorly structured, which would result in delay in publication (if not outright rejection).
- Politics and names do have some (minor) effect: having prominent authors/friends on the editorial board can result in a slightly faster turnaround. However, I have not heard of cases where editors have unethically accepted the work submitted by their friends, or rejected/dragged on the review process for the work of competitors.
answered Jan 6 at 15:31
SparkSpark
3,0431318
2
I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
– Buffy
Jan 6 at 16:03
16
Not at all - I'm not talking about (overtly) unethical behaviour, but yes, I have heard of instances where papers were stuck on administrative stuff and got pushed forward by a letter to the editor. The likelihood of editors responding to requests from authors they know is higher than to those they don't (although ideally it should be the same).
– Spark
Jan 6 at 16:12
8
I hope you are just guessing Mmm I think assuming 'friends' would play no role in science would simply be naive. Expect it to play a role everywhere.
– Stijn de Witt
Jan 6 at 23:32
@Spark And those papers would probably have been pushed forward regardless of whether or not the editor knew or knew of the authors. Sure, people are naturally biased towards helping their friends a little bit more and a little bit faster than people they don't know, but you make it sound like knowing somebody on the editorial board is the gateway to magically speedy paper acceptance.
– David Richerby
Jan 7 at 10:39
If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
– Spark
Jan 7 at 12:58
add a comment |
There can be many reasons why a paper takes a long time to be published. The `official' reason is that the paper needs to be carefully reviewed and considered before the result can be accepted for publication; the more prestigious the venue, the more care is taken in reviewing the results. However, there are other factors that come into play
- This is in my view the most important: reviewers take a long time to get to finish their review, especially in high-quality venues. One should remember that reviewing is unpaid labour that academics provide to the academic publication industry for (what is apparently) the right to publish. There is no real incentive to review; there are meta considerations, like standing in the community, that depend on how much you do it, but I know several successful academics that do the bare minimum.
- Good results in bad packaging: even a groundbreaking set of results can be poorly structured, which would result in delay in publication (if not outright rejection).
- Politics and names do have some (minor) effect: having prominent authors/friends on the editorial board can result in a slightly faster turnaround. However, I have not heard of cases where editors have unethically accepted the work submitted by their friends, or rejected/dragged on the review process for the work of competitors.
answered Jan 6 at 15:31
SparkSpark
3,0431318
2
I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
– Buffy
Jan 6 at 16:03
16
Not at all - I'm not talking about (overtly) unethical behaviour, but yes, I have heard of instances where papers were stuck on administrative stuff and got pushed forward by a letter to the editor. The likelihood of editors responding to requests from authors they know is higher than to those they don't (although ideally it should be the same).
– Spark
Jan 6 at 16:12
8
I hope you are just guessing Mmm I think assuming 'friends' would play no role in science would simply be naive. Expect it to play a role everywhere.
– Stijn de Witt
Jan 6 at 23:32
@Spark And those papers would probably have been pushed forward regardless of whether or not the editor knew or knew of the authors. Sure, people are naturally biased towards helping their friends a little bit more and a little bit faster than people they don't know, but you make it sound like knowing somebody on the editorial board is the gateway to magically speedy paper acceptance.
– David Richerby
Jan 7 at 10:39
If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
– Spark
Jan 7 at 12:58
add a comment |
There can be many reasons why a paper takes a long time to be published. The `official' reason is that the paper needs to be carefully reviewed and considered before the result can be accepted for publication; the more prestigious the venue, the more care is taken in reviewing the results. However, there are other factors that come into play
- This is in my view the most important: reviewers take a long time to get to finish their review, especially in high-quality venues. One should remember that reviewing is unpaid labour that academics provide to the academic publication industry for (what is apparently) the right to publish. There is no real incentive to review; there are meta considerations, like standing in the community, that depend on how much you do it, but I know several successful academics that do the bare minimum.
- Good results in bad packaging: even a groundbreaking set of results can be poorly structured, which would result in delay in publication (if not outright rejection).
- Politics and names do have some (minor) effect: having prominent authors/friends on the editorial board can result in a slightly faster turnaround. However, I have not heard of cases where editors have unethically accepted the work submitted by their friends, or rejected/dragged on the review process for the work of competitors.
answered Jan 6 at 15:31
SparkSpark
3,0431318
There can be many reasons why a paper takes a long time to be published. The `official' reason is that the paper needs to be carefully reviewed and considered before the result can be accepted for publication; the more prestigious the venue, the more care is taken in reviewing the results. However, there are other factors that come into play
- This is in my view the most important: reviewers take a long time to get to finish their review, especially in high-quality venues. One should remember that reviewing is unpaid labour that academics provide to the academic publication industry for (what is apparently) the right to publish. There is no real incentive to review; there are meta considerations, like standing in the community, that depend on how much you do it, but I know several successful academics that do the bare minimum.
- Good results in bad packaging: even a groundbreaking set of results can be poorly structured, which would result in delay in publication (if not outright rejection).
- Politics and names do have some (minor) effect: having prominent authors/friends on the editorial board can result in a slightly faster turnaround. However, I have not heard of cases where editors have unethically accepted the work submitted by their friends, or rejected/dragged on the review process for the work of competitors.
answered Jan 6 at 15:31
SparkSpark
3,0431318
edited Jan 7 at 13:01
answered Jan 6 at 15:31
SparkSpark
3,0431318
answered Jan 6 at 15:31
SparkSpark
3,0431318
answered Jan 6 at 15:31
SparkSpark
3,0431318
3,0431318
2
I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
– Buffy
Jan 6 at 16:03
16
Not at all - I'm not talking about (overtly) unethical behaviour, but yes, I have heard of instances where papers were stuck on administrative stuff and got pushed forward by a letter to the editor. The likelihood of editors responding to requests from authors they know is higher than to those they don't (although ideally it should be the same).
– Spark
Jan 6 at 16:12
8
I hope you are just guessing Mmm I think assuming 'friends' would play no role in science would simply be naive. Expect it to play a role everywhere.
– Stijn de Witt
Jan 6 at 23:32
@Spark And those papers would probably have been pushed forward regardless of whether or not the editor knew or knew of the authors. Sure, people are naturally biased towards helping their friends a little bit more and a little bit faster than people they don't know, but you make it sound like knowing somebody on the editorial board is the gateway to magically speedy paper acceptance.
– David Richerby
Jan 7 at 10:39
If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
– Spark
Jan 7 at 12:58
add a comment |
2
I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
– Buffy
Jan 6 at 16:03
16
Not at all - I'm not talking about (overtly) unethical behaviour, but yes, I have heard of instances where papers were stuck on administrative stuff and got pushed forward by a letter to the editor. The likelihood of editors responding to requests from authors they know is higher than to those they don't (although ideally it should be the same).
– Spark
Jan 6 at 16:12
8
I hope you are just guessing Mmm I think assuming 'friends' would play no role in science would simply be naive. Expect it to play a role everywhere.
– Stijn de Witt
Jan 6 at 23:32
@Spark And those papers would probably have been pushed forward regardless of whether or not the editor knew or knew of the authors. Sure, people are naturally biased towards helping their friends a little bit more and a little bit faster than people they don't know, but you make it sound like knowing somebody on the editorial board is the gateway to magically speedy paper acceptance.
– David Richerby
Jan 7 at 10:39
If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
– Spark
Jan 7 at 12:58
2
2
I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
– Buffy
Jan 6 at 16:03
I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
– Buffy
Jan 6 at 16:03
16
16
Not at all - I'm not talking about (overtly) unethical behaviour, but yes, I have heard of instances where papers were stuck on administrative stuff and got pushed forward by a letter to the editor. The likelihood of editors responding to requests from authors they know is higher than to those they don't (although ideally it should be the same).
– Spark
Jan 6 at 16:12
Not at all - I'm not talking about (overtly) unethical behaviour, but yes, I have heard of instances where papers were stuck on administrative stuff and got pushed forward by a letter to the editor. The likelihood of editors responding to requests from authors they know is higher than to those they don't (although ideally it should be the same).
– Spark
Jan 6 at 16:12
8
8
I hope you are just guessing Mmm I think assuming 'friends' would play no role in science would simply be naive. Expect it to play a role everywhere.
– Stijn de Witt
Jan 6 at 23:32
I hope you are just guessing Mmm I think assuming 'friends' would play no role in science would simply be naive. Expect it to play a role everywhere.
– Stijn de Witt
Jan 6 at 23:32
@Spark And those papers would probably have been pushed forward regardless of whether or not the editor knew or knew of the authors. Sure, people are naturally biased towards helping their friends a little bit more and a little bit faster than people they don't know, but you make it sound like knowing somebody on the editorial board is the gateway to magically speedy paper acceptance.
– David Richerby
Jan 7 at 10:39
@Spark And those papers would probably have been pushed forward regardless of whether or not the editor knew or knew of the authors. Sure, people are naturally biased towards helping their friends a little bit more and a little bit faster than people they don't know, but you make it sound like knowing somebody on the editorial board is the gateway to magically speedy paper acceptance.
– David Richerby
Jan 7 at 10:39
If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
– Spark
Jan 7 at 12:58
If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
– Spark
Jan 7 at 12:58
add a comment |
You don't know what the timeline really was like. For all you know, it could've been this:
Authors submit paper: 24 January 2002
First decision made: 24 February 2002
Revision submitted: 3 March 2003
Final decision made: 21 March 2003
First proofs sent to author: 2 April 2003
Proofs received back from the author: August 2004
Don't automatically assume that long review times are always the journal's fault. Sometimes the author just takes a long time to respond. Here's an extreme example.
It's been more than three years since a decision was made on this manuscript, and the authors still haven't submitted a revision. At this point, they probably will never submit a revision. But if they do: the only fair submission date is 21 March 2015, and it will look like the review took a fantastically long time.
answered Jan 6 at 18:57
AllureAllure
29.2k1689141
add a comment |
You don't know what the timeline really was like. For all you know, it could've been this:
Authors submit paper: 24 January 2002
First decision made: 24 February 2002
Revision submitted: 3 March 2003
Final decision made: 21 March 2003
First proofs sent to author: 2 April 2003
Proofs received back from the author: August 2004
Don't automatically assume that long review times are always the journal's fault. Sometimes the author just takes a long time to respond. Here's an extreme example.
It's been more than three years since a decision was made on this manuscript, and the authors still haven't submitted a revision. At this point, they probably will never submit a revision. But if they do: the only fair submission date is 21 March 2015, and it will look like the review took a fantastically long time.
answered Jan 6 at 18:57
AllureAllure
29.2k1689141
add a comment |
You don't know what the timeline really was like. For all you know, it could've been this:
Authors submit paper: 24 January 2002
First decision made: 24 February 2002
Revision submitted: 3 March 2003
Final decision made: 21 March 2003
First proofs sent to author: 2 April 2003
Proofs received back from the author: August 2004
Don't automatically assume that long review times are always the journal's fault. Sometimes the author just takes a long time to respond. Here's an extreme example.
It's been more than three years since a decision was made on this manuscript, and the authors still haven't submitted a revision. At this point, they probably will never submit a revision. But if they do: the only fair submission date is 21 March 2015, and it will look like the review took a fantastically long time.
answered Jan 6 at 18:57
AllureAllure
29.2k1689141
You don't know what the timeline really was like. For all you know, it could've been this:
Authors submit paper: 24 January 2002
First decision made: 24 February 2002
Revision submitted: 3 March 2003
Final decision made: 21 March 2003
First proofs sent to author: 2 April 2003
Proofs received back from the author: August 2004
Don't automatically assume that long review times are always the journal's fault. Sometimes the author just takes a long time to respond. Here's an extreme example.
It's been more than three years since a decision was made on this manuscript, and the authors still haven't submitted a revision. At this point, they probably will never submit a revision. But if they do: the only fair submission date is 21 March 2015, and it will look like the review took a fantastically long time.
answered Jan 6 at 18:57
AllureAllure
29.2k1689141
answered Jan 6 at 18:57
AllureAllure
29.2k1689141
answered Jan 6 at 18:57
AllureAllure
29.2k1689141
answered Jan 6 at 18:57
AllureAllure
29.2k1689141
29.2k1689141
add a comment |
add a comment |
does the reputation of some authors cause their papers to be prioritized for review sooner than other important papers[?]
There isn't really such a thing as "prioritized for review". In most cases, the time it takes to find reviewers is much shorter than the time taken for those reviewers to do their work. Even if the editor says, "Wow, this paper is important – I'd better find reviewers as fast as I can!", that probably wouldn't make much difference to the total turn-around time.
e.g. the paper "primes is in p", which was written by unknown, Indian grad students
Maninindra Agrawal was a full professor at the time, not an unknown grad student.
answered Jan 6 at 18:46
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
29.2k659121
add a comment |
does the reputation of some authors cause their papers to be prioritized for review sooner than other important papers[?]
There isn't really such a thing as "prioritized for review". In most cases, the time it takes to find reviewers is much shorter than the time taken for those reviewers to do their work. Even if the editor says, "Wow, this paper is important – I'd better find reviewers as fast as I can!", that probably wouldn't make much difference to the total turn-around time.
e.g. the paper "primes is in p", which was written by unknown, Indian grad students
Maninindra Agrawal was a full professor at the time, not an unknown grad student.
answered Jan 6 at 18:46
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
29.2k659121
add a comment |
does the reputation of some authors cause their papers to be prioritized for review sooner than other important papers[?]
There isn't really such a thing as "prioritized for review". In most cases, the time it takes to find reviewers is much shorter than the time taken for those reviewers to do their work. Even if the editor says, "Wow, this paper is important – I'd better find reviewers as fast as I can!", that probably wouldn't make much difference to the total turn-around time.
e.g. the paper "primes is in p", which was written by unknown, Indian grad students
Maninindra Agrawal was a full professor at the time, not an unknown grad student.
answered Jan 6 at 18:46
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
29.2k659121
does the reputation of some authors cause their papers to be prioritized for review sooner than other important papers[?]
There isn't really such a thing as "prioritized for review". In most cases, the time it takes to find reviewers is much shorter than the time taken for those reviewers to do their work. Even if the editor says, "Wow, this paper is important – I'd better find reviewers as fast as I can!", that probably wouldn't make much difference to the total turn-around time.
e.g. the paper "primes is in p", which was written by unknown, Indian grad students
Maninindra Agrawal was a full professor at the time, not an unknown grad student.
answered Jan 6 at 18:46
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
29.2k659121
answered Jan 6 at 18:46
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
29.2k659121
answered Jan 6 at 18:46
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
29.2k659121
answered Jan 6 at 18:46
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
29.2k659121
29.2k659121
add a comment |
add a comment |
The Annals of Mathematics is the most prestigious mathematical journal. It has very strict standards, and it often does triple reviews. So, the editor has to find three willing referees among top mathematicians in the area. These are usually very busy people, so it is no surprise that the whole process takes a while. Besides the fact that from "received" to "accepted" there may have been a request for a revision. In all, it doesn't sound like a lot of time, even if not ideal.
As an anecdote about this journal, I know about very good mathematicians who have submitted their best work to the Annals, and the report has been "good work, but not up to standards".
answered Jan 7 at 0:12
Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami
3,0911220
add a comment |
The Annals of Mathematics is the most prestigious mathematical journal. It has very strict standards, and it often does triple reviews. So, the editor has to find three willing referees among top mathematicians in the area. These are usually very busy people, so it is no surprise that the whole process takes a while. Besides the fact that from "received" to "accepted" there may have been a request for a revision. In all, it doesn't sound like a lot of time, even if not ideal.
As an anecdote about this journal, I know about very good mathematicians who have submitted their best work to the Annals, and the report has been "good work, but not up to standards".
answered Jan 7 at 0:12
Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami
3,0911220
add a comment |
The Annals of Mathematics is the most prestigious mathematical journal. It has very strict standards, and it often does triple reviews. So, the editor has to find three willing referees among top mathematicians in the area. These are usually very busy people, so it is no surprise that the whole process takes a while. Besides the fact that from "received" to "accepted" there may have been a request for a revision. In all, it doesn't sound like a lot of time, even if not ideal.
As an anecdote about this journal, I know about very good mathematicians who have submitted their best work to the Annals, and the report has been "good work, but not up to standards".
answered Jan 7 at 0:12
Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami
3,0911220
The Annals of Mathematics is the most prestigious mathematical journal. It has very strict standards, and it often does triple reviews. So, the editor has to find three willing referees among top mathematicians in the area. These are usually very busy people, so it is no surprise that the whole process takes a while. Besides the fact that from "received" to "accepted" there may have been a request for a revision. In all, it doesn't sound like a lot of time, even if not ideal.
As an anecdote about this journal, I know about very good mathematicians who have submitted their best work to the Annals, and the report has been "good work, but not up to standards".
answered Jan 7 at 0:12
Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami
3,0911220
answered Jan 7 at 0:12
Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami
3,0911220
answered Jan 7 at 0:12
Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami
3,0911220
answered Jan 7 at 0:12
Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami
3,0911220
3,0911220
add a comment |
add a comment |
I doubt that the reputation of the author has a large effect in general, especially at the review stage. It might if the paper suggests an especially important result. In that case, a quick read and the likelihood that it is correct will motivate the editor and reviewers to get it finished quickly. But the sheer volume of submissions suggests that the effect is small, and rare.
More likely, delays are natural. If the topic is obscure it may be hard to find appropriate reviewers. If the result is a small contribution, there will be little incentive to advance it over others. Sometimes the paper requires additional checking, if it isn't especially self-contained or if the techniques used are non-standard.
Moreover, the editor doesn't have a lot of control over the work habits or schedules of the reviewers as they are usually unpaid volunteers. Academic schedules get in the way of doing things quickly as does the too common absent mindedness of some professors. Sometimes the reviews come back to the editor in a way that it is hard to make a decision and the paper is sent out to others so that the editor gets a clearer picture. Sometimes reviewer conflicts need to be addressed internally.
Once accepted, the delays are usually just caused by scheduling. For print journals, especially, where overall page limits put in a constraint, as well as the fact that some editors may want to bring similarly themed papers into a single volume. At this point, of course, it may be desirable to think about the reputation of the authors and so an unknown author with a minor result might get delayed a bit.
answered Jan 6 at 15:36
BuffyBuffy
42k10138217
add a comment |
I doubt that the reputation of the author has a large effect in general, especially at the review stage. It might if the paper suggests an especially important result. In that case, a quick read and the likelihood that it is correct will motivate the editor and reviewers to get it finished quickly. But the sheer volume of submissions suggests that the effect is small, and rare.
More likely, delays are natural. If the topic is obscure it may be hard to find appropriate reviewers. If the result is a small contribution, there will be little incentive to advance it over others. Sometimes the paper requires additional checking, if it isn't especially self-contained or if the techniques used are non-standard.
Moreover, the editor doesn't have a lot of control over the work habits or schedules of the reviewers as they are usually unpaid volunteers. Academic schedules get in the way of doing things quickly as does the too common absent mindedness of some professors. Sometimes the reviews come back to the editor in a way that it is hard to make a decision and the paper is sent out to others so that the editor gets a clearer picture. Sometimes reviewer conflicts need to be addressed internally.
Once accepted, the delays are usually just caused by scheduling. For print journals, especially, where overall page limits put in a constraint, as well as the fact that some editors may want to bring similarly themed papers into a single volume. At this point, of course, it may be desirable to think about the reputation of the authors and so an unknown author with a minor result might get delayed a bit.
answered Jan 6 at 15:36
BuffyBuffy
42k10138217
add a comment |
I doubt that the reputation of the author has a large effect in general, especially at the review stage. It might if the paper suggests an especially important result. In that case, a quick read and the likelihood that it is correct will motivate the editor and reviewers to get it finished quickly. But the sheer volume of submissions suggests that the effect is small, and rare.
More likely, delays are natural. If the topic is obscure it may be hard to find appropriate reviewers. If the result is a small contribution, there will be little incentive to advance it over others. Sometimes the paper requires additional checking, if it isn't especially self-contained or if the techniques used are non-standard.
Moreover, the editor doesn't have a lot of control over the work habits or schedules of the reviewers as they are usually unpaid volunteers. Academic schedules get in the way of doing things quickly as does the too common absent mindedness of some professors. Sometimes the reviews come back to the editor in a way that it is hard to make a decision and the paper is sent out to others so that the editor gets a clearer picture. Sometimes reviewer conflicts need to be addressed internally.
Once accepted, the delays are usually just caused by scheduling. For print journals, especially, where overall page limits put in a constraint, as well as the fact that some editors may want to bring similarly themed papers into a single volume. At this point, of course, it may be desirable to think about the reputation of the authors and so an unknown author with a minor result might get delayed a bit.
answered Jan 6 at 15:36
BuffyBuffy
42k10138217
I doubt that the reputation of the author has a large effect in general, especially at the review stage. It might if the paper suggests an especially important result. In that case, a quick read and the likelihood that it is correct will motivate the editor and reviewers to get it finished quickly. But the sheer volume of submissions suggests that the effect is small, and rare.
More likely, delays are natural. If the topic is obscure it may be hard to find appropriate reviewers. If the result is a small contribution, there will be little incentive to advance it over others. Sometimes the paper requires additional checking, if it isn't especially self-contained or if the techniques used are non-standard.
Moreover, the editor doesn't have a lot of control over the work habits or schedules of the reviewers as they are usually unpaid volunteers. Academic schedules get in the way of doing things quickly as does the too common absent mindedness of some professors. Sometimes the reviews come back to the editor in a way that it is hard to make a decision and the paper is sent out to others so that the editor gets a clearer picture. Sometimes reviewer conflicts need to be addressed internally.
Once accepted, the delays are usually just caused by scheduling. For print journals, especially, where overall page limits put in a constraint, as well as the fact that some editors may want to bring similarly themed papers into a single volume. At this point, of course, it may be desirable to think about the reputation of the authors and so an unknown author with a minor result might get delayed a bit.
answered Jan 6 at 15:36
BuffyBuffy
42k10138217
answered Jan 6 at 15:36
BuffyBuffy
42k10138217
answered Jan 6 at 15:36
BuffyBuffy
42k10138217
answered Jan 6 at 15:36
BuffyBuffy
42k10138217
42k10138217
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122621%2fwhy-would-a-small-paper-10-pages-with-an-important-result-take-over-a-year-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
12
It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
– Pieter Naaijkens
Jan 6 at 15:30
6
10 pages isn’t a small paper in my field (bioinformatics and computational biology) — on the contrary, it would be extremely long (that said, most good papers easily have that many pages of supplementary information but these are never counted). But even in mathematics, a proof spanning several pages will take time to proofread, correct, etc.
– Konrad Rudolph
Jan 6 at 19:06
15
What makes you think this is unusual? The Annals of Math takes a long time to review papers. It is considered the most prestigious and rigorous journal in pure mathematics. I've seen famous papers that took 5 years or more to be published in it. One year may be extremely quick for them.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:55
9
This is not, of course, a thorough analysis, but looking in the same volume (160), I glanced through maybe 10 or so other papers, and they all take at least a year to be accepted, and several 2-3 years.
– Chan-Ho Suh
Jan 6 at 19:59
5
"Primes is in P" They sure is.
– Joel Reyes Noche
Jan 7 at 5:13