I log into the journal’s website, enter my credentials, and navigate to the Submissions Being Processed tab. It’s been three weeks, and my manuscript’s status hasn’t changed. Undergoing Initial Checking. Again. And again. I sigh and close the tab. But, of course, I’ll check again tomorrow. Nine months ago, I found myself in the same situation – my manuscript sat Under Review for months, only for me to receive a formal rejection with no explanation. Now, every time my submission lingers in editorial limbo, a familiar sense of unease creeps in: What if it happens again?
We all know peer review takes time. But how long should we wait before we start worrying? Should I reach out to the editor? Would that make me seem impatient? Where is the line between a normal academic process and a bureaucratic deadlock that holds research hostage?
Waiting is inevitable – it’s part of the publishing process. Academic publishing follows the single submission rule: while a manuscript is under review at one journal, the author cannot submit it elsewhere. This widely accepted practice allows editorial teams to manage peer review efficiently, ensuring that reviewers’ time and efforts are not wasted. That’s why researchers must wait, often longer than expected, with no guarantees of a positive outcome.
To avoid finding myself in this situation again, I started looking for alternatives. One way to prevent findings from getting lost in editorial limbo is through preprints – early versions of manuscripts deposited in open-access repositories before or alongside formal journal submission. Preprints don’t replace the peer-review process, but they allow researchers to share their work, receive feedback, and contribute to ongoing discussions while awaiting editorial decisions.
Scientific communication is evolving, and the rapid exchange of knowledge has never been more critical. More researchers are embracing preprints, recognizing them as a way to make findings immediately available. Many journals are also adapting, increasingly supporting this practice and acknowledging that modern science cannot afford to be stalled by long, unpredictable review timelines. But the situation is not so straightforward. Not all journals are equally receptive to preprints – some refuse to consider manuscripts that have been shared in open repositories. That’s why authors must carefully check a journal’s policies before submission to avoid unnecessary restrictions or unexpected rejections late in the process.
Even if everything is done right, the manuscript is well-prepared, the journal is carefully chosen, and all requirements are met, there is still no guarantee of a quick response or a favorable outcome. Delays happen. And sometimes, after months of waiting, the decision isn’t what the author hoped for.
That’s why it’s crucial not to fixate on a single manuscript. Submitted a paper? Close the tab, take a deep breath, and get back to work. Your academic journey shouldn’t be put on hold just because one submission is stuck in review. Keep researching, keep writing, and keep moving forward. Success in science isn’t about a single publication – it’s about persistence.
Scientific publishing isn’t perfect – and that’s okay. Yes, the system is complex, and sometimes unfair. Yes, editorial decisions can be frustratingly opaque. But you are a researcher, not a passive victim of academic bureaucracy. Journals, grants, impact factors – these are just mechanisms, not the purpose of science itself.
Your findings are yours. Regardless of a journal’s decision, the knowledge you’ve generated remains valuable. Your conclusions are more than just a PDF file – they are experience, insights, and ideas that will shape your future research. Waiting is part of academic life. But you have a choice: you can spend that time anxiously refreshing your submission status, or you can remind yourself that you still control your research path. Journals may decide the fate of a manuscript – but they don’t decide your scientific career.
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар