We often get questions from people who are not aware how a journal works and do not understand some step in the editiorial process¹, think some step takes too long² or are just very worried³. We also get some questions where a step in the editorial process took ridiculously long⁴. (e.g., a month for initial quality check) or questions asking for expected times for each step for a specific journal⁴ (10 k only link).
The problem with these questions is that we can answer most of them only be reiterating one of the following:
- We cannot possibly predict the editorial decision.
- Depending on the field, publisher and journal, that’s normal / outrageously long.
- The status message probably means that [the editor has to evaluate the reviews].
As different journals or editiorial systems use different status messages, and review times vary greatly accross fields, this leads to questions that aren’t exactly duplicates of each other but could all be duplicates of a non-existing master question. I here propose to create such a canonical question.
We may use it to as a duplicate for questions such as the above, which does not only avoid us dealing with such questions but also helps the asker. It may keep some askers from asking in the first place or help them to focus their question on what is not covered by the canonical question.
This question and answer shall be a community wiki and cover:
- What is the typical workflow of a journal?
- How are the individual steps of this workflow named in different editiorial systems?
- What are the typical durations of individual steps, if they can be given at all? How do they roughly depend on the field?
This is a feature-request, i.e., you can indicate approval or opposition by voting on the question.