What time can be considered enough to withdraw my submission? [duplicate]












5















This question already has an answer here:




  • What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?

    1 answer




I had submitted a manuscript to an ESCI journal.
It has been over 1 month since I submitted but the status shows "with editor".



I mailed the editor to check the status of my manuscript. The editor informed me that he had sent the manuscript to some referees but he has not received any reply from the reviewers.
He/She further said that if I want, I may consider submitting my paper elsewhere.



How long should I wait for the reviewers to give a decision whether they will review my manuscript or not?



Also my deadlines for submission are due in 2-3 months, i.e. I need to get my first submission within 2-3 months.



What time can be considered enough to withdraw my submission?










share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by henning, corey979, scaaahu, Scientist, OBu 8 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











  • 1




    What do you mean by "deadlines for submission"?
    – Allure
    18 hours ago
















5















This question already has an answer here:




  • What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?

    1 answer




I had submitted a manuscript to an ESCI journal.
It has been over 1 month since I submitted but the status shows "with editor".



I mailed the editor to check the status of my manuscript. The editor informed me that he had sent the manuscript to some referees but he has not received any reply from the reviewers.
He/She further said that if I want, I may consider submitting my paper elsewhere.



How long should I wait for the reviewers to give a decision whether they will review my manuscript or not?



Also my deadlines for submission are due in 2-3 months, i.e. I need to get my first submission within 2-3 months.



What time can be considered enough to withdraw my submission?










share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by henning, corey979, scaaahu, Scientist, OBu 8 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











  • 1




    What do you mean by "deadlines for submission"?
    – Allure
    18 hours ago














5












5








5








This question already has an answer here:




  • What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?

    1 answer




I had submitted a manuscript to an ESCI journal.
It has been over 1 month since I submitted but the status shows "with editor".



I mailed the editor to check the status of my manuscript. The editor informed me that he had sent the manuscript to some referees but he has not received any reply from the reviewers.
He/She further said that if I want, I may consider submitting my paper elsewhere.



How long should I wait for the reviewers to give a decision whether they will review my manuscript or not?



Also my deadlines for submission are due in 2-3 months, i.e. I need to get my first submission within 2-3 months.



What time can be considered enough to withdraw my submission?










share|improve this question
















This question already has an answer here:




  • What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?

    1 answer




I had submitted a manuscript to an ESCI journal.
It has been over 1 month since I submitted but the status shows "with editor".



I mailed the editor to check the status of my manuscript. The editor informed me that he had sent the manuscript to some referees but he has not received any reply from the reviewers.
He/She further said that if I want, I may consider submitting my paper elsewhere.



How long should I wait for the reviewers to give a decision whether they will review my manuscript or not?



Also my deadlines for submission are due in 2-3 months, i.e. I need to get my first submission within 2-3 months.



What time can be considered enough to withdraw my submission?





This question already has an answer here:




  • What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?

    1 answer








publications paper-submission withdraw






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









corey979

3,71151831




3,71151831










asked yesterday









Learnmore

1,0101918




1,0101918




marked as duplicate by henning, corey979, scaaahu, Scientist, OBu 8 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by henning, corey979, scaaahu, Scientist, OBu 8 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 1




    What do you mean by "deadlines for submission"?
    – Allure
    18 hours ago














  • 1




    What do you mean by "deadlines for submission"?
    – Allure
    18 hours ago








1




1




What do you mean by "deadlines for submission"?
– Allure
18 hours ago




What do you mean by "deadlines for submission"?
– Allure
18 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















7














The review process often takes a long time. 2-3 months is typical. I’ve known instances of it taking 9-12 months. You need to be patient. This process is about the same for each journal (well most take a month or so at least. You must consider resubmitting to another journal carefully as you won’t save time by starting over, even if you don’t need to reformat it or write for a different audience (note that you cannot submit the paper to more than one journal at a time).



That it’s still with the editor (hasn’t been rejected) is a good sign. If they believe your manuscript does not have relevance to their journal or sufficient merit, they would have rejected it by now. They will now only do so if the reviewers raise serious concerns, it’s often accepted with revisions if it goes out for review.



The editorial process takes a long time. Many scientific or academic editors perform this role as a part-time job on top of their own academic responsibilities. The most time consuming part of the review process is finding the reviewers. They need to find reviewers with the right expertise who don’t have an existing relationship with the authors who are available to review. It can take a long time to get responses for requests to review.



Once they find reviewers, the review process should be quick. Reviewers are only given a couple of weeks to return their completed review (usually they submit them in this time or a few days late). They should decline to review if they cannot do in this timeframe. Once the reviews have been returned, an editor should give you a decision and the reviews within a few days.






share|improve this answer























  • Thanks for your answer,Can you kindly say when will the Tag from "With Editor" change to "Under Review"
    – Learnmore
    yesterday






  • 1




    Sorry, I cannot. This depends on the journal and varies a lot. It is the longest and most uncertain part of the review process (as explained above).
    – Tom Kelly
    yesterday










  • I’ve generally gotten mine in 2 months but there are exceptions to this. It’s difficult to generalise.
    – Tom Kelly
    yesterday










  • okay thank you very much
    – Learnmore
    12 hours ago



















2














Given that you have a few months before you need to make a decision, it seems best to wait. Reviewing takes time and reviewers are often busy. As you get closer to other deadlines you can contact the editor again if you haven't already heard more and withdraw at that time if you wish.



But there seems to be little reason to panic now.






share|improve this answer





















  • Okay thanks Sir,But when should I contact the Editor again? What will be the ideal time ?
    – Learnmore
    yesterday










  • If the editor responded promptly in the past, you can make it fairly close to your decision point. Say a week. Otherwise, earlier. But you risk being treated as a "pest" if you ask too often. But if you need to ask again, mention that you have a deadline for submission elsewhere.
    – Buffy
    yesterday



















0














The average time taken to handle a paper varies by field. In the one I'm most familiar with (physics), the timeline looks like this.



In your case, your paper has gone one month with reviewers invited but none that have accepted. That's not good and it's unlikely any of the reviewers will agree to review the manuscript now. If I were handling your paper, I'd be inviting new reviewers already; however it depends on how active your editor is. If your editor is busy/on holiday/not very active etc, then he or she might decide to wait another month before inviting new reviewers. The fact that the editor responded to your query however is a good sign that they're inviting reviewers already.



So I would wait. I'd probably let the editor keep trying for another 2 months at least. As long as the editor is trying, he or she will eventually find reviewers. If you withdraw and submit elsewhere, the process starts from scratch, so you might have to wait even longer and there's no guarantee the new journal will find reviewers quickly, either.






share|improve this answer




























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    7














    The review process often takes a long time. 2-3 months is typical. I’ve known instances of it taking 9-12 months. You need to be patient. This process is about the same for each journal (well most take a month or so at least. You must consider resubmitting to another journal carefully as you won’t save time by starting over, even if you don’t need to reformat it or write for a different audience (note that you cannot submit the paper to more than one journal at a time).



    That it’s still with the editor (hasn’t been rejected) is a good sign. If they believe your manuscript does not have relevance to their journal or sufficient merit, they would have rejected it by now. They will now only do so if the reviewers raise serious concerns, it’s often accepted with revisions if it goes out for review.



    The editorial process takes a long time. Many scientific or academic editors perform this role as a part-time job on top of their own academic responsibilities. The most time consuming part of the review process is finding the reviewers. They need to find reviewers with the right expertise who don’t have an existing relationship with the authors who are available to review. It can take a long time to get responses for requests to review.



    Once they find reviewers, the review process should be quick. Reviewers are only given a couple of weeks to return their completed review (usually they submit them in this time or a few days late). They should decline to review if they cannot do in this timeframe. Once the reviews have been returned, an editor should give you a decision and the reviews within a few days.






    share|improve this answer























    • Thanks for your answer,Can you kindly say when will the Tag from "With Editor" change to "Under Review"
      – Learnmore
      yesterday






    • 1




      Sorry, I cannot. This depends on the journal and varies a lot. It is the longest and most uncertain part of the review process (as explained above).
      – Tom Kelly
      yesterday










    • I’ve generally gotten mine in 2 months but there are exceptions to this. It’s difficult to generalise.
      – Tom Kelly
      yesterday










    • okay thank you very much
      – Learnmore
      12 hours ago
















    7














    The review process often takes a long time. 2-3 months is typical. I’ve known instances of it taking 9-12 months. You need to be patient. This process is about the same for each journal (well most take a month or so at least. You must consider resubmitting to another journal carefully as you won’t save time by starting over, even if you don’t need to reformat it or write for a different audience (note that you cannot submit the paper to more than one journal at a time).



    That it’s still with the editor (hasn’t been rejected) is a good sign. If they believe your manuscript does not have relevance to their journal or sufficient merit, they would have rejected it by now. They will now only do so if the reviewers raise serious concerns, it’s often accepted with revisions if it goes out for review.



    The editorial process takes a long time. Many scientific or academic editors perform this role as a part-time job on top of their own academic responsibilities. The most time consuming part of the review process is finding the reviewers. They need to find reviewers with the right expertise who don’t have an existing relationship with the authors who are available to review. It can take a long time to get responses for requests to review.



    Once they find reviewers, the review process should be quick. Reviewers are only given a couple of weeks to return their completed review (usually they submit them in this time or a few days late). They should decline to review if they cannot do in this timeframe. Once the reviews have been returned, an editor should give you a decision and the reviews within a few days.






    share|improve this answer























    • Thanks for your answer,Can you kindly say when will the Tag from "With Editor" change to "Under Review"
      – Learnmore
      yesterday






    • 1




      Sorry, I cannot. This depends on the journal and varies a lot. It is the longest and most uncertain part of the review process (as explained above).
      – Tom Kelly
      yesterday










    • I’ve generally gotten mine in 2 months but there are exceptions to this. It’s difficult to generalise.
      – Tom Kelly
      yesterday










    • okay thank you very much
      – Learnmore
      12 hours ago














    7












    7








    7






    The review process often takes a long time. 2-3 months is typical. I’ve known instances of it taking 9-12 months. You need to be patient. This process is about the same for each journal (well most take a month or so at least. You must consider resubmitting to another journal carefully as you won’t save time by starting over, even if you don’t need to reformat it or write for a different audience (note that you cannot submit the paper to more than one journal at a time).



    That it’s still with the editor (hasn’t been rejected) is a good sign. If they believe your manuscript does not have relevance to their journal or sufficient merit, they would have rejected it by now. They will now only do so if the reviewers raise serious concerns, it’s often accepted with revisions if it goes out for review.



    The editorial process takes a long time. Many scientific or academic editors perform this role as a part-time job on top of their own academic responsibilities. The most time consuming part of the review process is finding the reviewers. They need to find reviewers with the right expertise who don’t have an existing relationship with the authors who are available to review. It can take a long time to get responses for requests to review.



    Once they find reviewers, the review process should be quick. Reviewers are only given a couple of weeks to return their completed review (usually they submit them in this time or a few days late). They should decline to review if they cannot do in this timeframe. Once the reviews have been returned, an editor should give you a decision and the reviews within a few days.






    share|improve this answer














    The review process often takes a long time. 2-3 months is typical. I’ve known instances of it taking 9-12 months. You need to be patient. This process is about the same for each journal (well most take a month or so at least. You must consider resubmitting to another journal carefully as you won’t save time by starting over, even if you don’t need to reformat it or write for a different audience (note that you cannot submit the paper to more than one journal at a time).



    That it’s still with the editor (hasn’t been rejected) is a good sign. If they believe your manuscript does not have relevance to their journal or sufficient merit, they would have rejected it by now. They will now only do so if the reviewers raise serious concerns, it’s often accepted with revisions if it goes out for review.



    The editorial process takes a long time. Many scientific or academic editors perform this role as a part-time job on top of their own academic responsibilities. The most time consuming part of the review process is finding the reviewers. They need to find reviewers with the right expertise who don’t have an existing relationship with the authors who are available to review. It can take a long time to get responses for requests to review.



    Once they find reviewers, the review process should be quick. Reviewers are only given a couple of weeks to return their completed review (usually they submit them in this time or a few days late). They should decline to review if they cannot do in this timeframe. Once the reviews have been returned, an editor should give you a decision and the reviews within a few days.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 19 hours ago

























    answered yesterday









    Tom Kelly

    1,3531616




    1,3531616












    • Thanks for your answer,Can you kindly say when will the Tag from "With Editor" change to "Under Review"
      – Learnmore
      yesterday






    • 1




      Sorry, I cannot. This depends on the journal and varies a lot. It is the longest and most uncertain part of the review process (as explained above).
      – Tom Kelly
      yesterday










    • I’ve generally gotten mine in 2 months but there are exceptions to this. It’s difficult to generalise.
      – Tom Kelly
      yesterday










    • okay thank you very much
      – Learnmore
      12 hours ago


















    • Thanks for your answer,Can you kindly say when will the Tag from "With Editor" change to "Under Review"
      – Learnmore
      yesterday






    • 1




      Sorry, I cannot. This depends on the journal and varies a lot. It is the longest and most uncertain part of the review process (as explained above).
      – Tom Kelly
      yesterday










    • I’ve generally gotten mine in 2 months but there are exceptions to this. It’s difficult to generalise.
      – Tom Kelly
      yesterday










    • okay thank you very much
      – Learnmore
      12 hours ago
















    Thanks for your answer,Can you kindly say when will the Tag from "With Editor" change to "Under Review"
    – Learnmore
    yesterday




    Thanks for your answer,Can you kindly say when will the Tag from "With Editor" change to "Under Review"
    – Learnmore
    yesterday




    1




    1




    Sorry, I cannot. This depends on the journal and varies a lot. It is the longest and most uncertain part of the review process (as explained above).
    – Tom Kelly
    yesterday




    Sorry, I cannot. This depends on the journal and varies a lot. It is the longest and most uncertain part of the review process (as explained above).
    – Tom Kelly
    yesterday












    I’ve generally gotten mine in 2 months but there are exceptions to this. It’s difficult to generalise.
    – Tom Kelly
    yesterday




    I’ve generally gotten mine in 2 months but there are exceptions to this. It’s difficult to generalise.
    – Tom Kelly
    yesterday












    okay thank you very much
    – Learnmore
    12 hours ago




    okay thank you very much
    – Learnmore
    12 hours ago











    2














    Given that you have a few months before you need to make a decision, it seems best to wait. Reviewing takes time and reviewers are often busy. As you get closer to other deadlines you can contact the editor again if you haven't already heard more and withdraw at that time if you wish.



    But there seems to be little reason to panic now.






    share|improve this answer





















    • Okay thanks Sir,But when should I contact the Editor again? What will be the ideal time ?
      – Learnmore
      yesterday










    • If the editor responded promptly in the past, you can make it fairly close to your decision point. Say a week. Otherwise, earlier. But you risk being treated as a "pest" if you ask too often. But if you need to ask again, mention that you have a deadline for submission elsewhere.
      – Buffy
      yesterday
















    2














    Given that you have a few months before you need to make a decision, it seems best to wait. Reviewing takes time and reviewers are often busy. As you get closer to other deadlines you can contact the editor again if you haven't already heard more and withdraw at that time if you wish.



    But there seems to be little reason to panic now.






    share|improve this answer





















    • Okay thanks Sir,But when should I contact the Editor again? What will be the ideal time ?
      – Learnmore
      yesterday










    • If the editor responded promptly in the past, you can make it fairly close to your decision point. Say a week. Otherwise, earlier. But you risk being treated as a "pest" if you ask too often. But if you need to ask again, mention that you have a deadline for submission elsewhere.
      – Buffy
      yesterday














    2












    2








    2






    Given that you have a few months before you need to make a decision, it seems best to wait. Reviewing takes time and reviewers are often busy. As you get closer to other deadlines you can contact the editor again if you haven't already heard more and withdraw at that time if you wish.



    But there seems to be little reason to panic now.






    share|improve this answer












    Given that you have a few months before you need to make a decision, it seems best to wait. Reviewing takes time and reviewers are often busy. As you get closer to other deadlines you can contact the editor again if you haven't already heard more and withdraw at that time if you wish.



    But there seems to be little reason to panic now.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    Buffy

    36.3k7114188




    36.3k7114188












    • Okay thanks Sir,But when should I contact the Editor again? What will be the ideal time ?
      – Learnmore
      yesterday










    • If the editor responded promptly in the past, you can make it fairly close to your decision point. Say a week. Otherwise, earlier. But you risk being treated as a "pest" if you ask too often. But if you need to ask again, mention that you have a deadline for submission elsewhere.
      – Buffy
      yesterday


















    • Okay thanks Sir,But when should I contact the Editor again? What will be the ideal time ?
      – Learnmore
      yesterday










    • If the editor responded promptly in the past, you can make it fairly close to your decision point. Say a week. Otherwise, earlier. But you risk being treated as a "pest" if you ask too often. But if you need to ask again, mention that you have a deadline for submission elsewhere.
      – Buffy
      yesterday
















    Okay thanks Sir,But when should I contact the Editor again? What will be the ideal time ?
    – Learnmore
    yesterday




    Okay thanks Sir,But when should I contact the Editor again? What will be the ideal time ?
    – Learnmore
    yesterday












    If the editor responded promptly in the past, you can make it fairly close to your decision point. Say a week. Otherwise, earlier. But you risk being treated as a "pest" if you ask too often. But if you need to ask again, mention that you have a deadline for submission elsewhere.
    – Buffy
    yesterday




    If the editor responded promptly in the past, you can make it fairly close to your decision point. Say a week. Otherwise, earlier. But you risk being treated as a "pest" if you ask too often. But if you need to ask again, mention that you have a deadline for submission elsewhere.
    – Buffy
    yesterday











    0














    The average time taken to handle a paper varies by field. In the one I'm most familiar with (physics), the timeline looks like this.



    In your case, your paper has gone one month with reviewers invited but none that have accepted. That's not good and it's unlikely any of the reviewers will agree to review the manuscript now. If I were handling your paper, I'd be inviting new reviewers already; however it depends on how active your editor is. If your editor is busy/on holiday/not very active etc, then he or she might decide to wait another month before inviting new reviewers. The fact that the editor responded to your query however is a good sign that they're inviting reviewers already.



    So I would wait. I'd probably let the editor keep trying for another 2 months at least. As long as the editor is trying, he or she will eventually find reviewers. If you withdraw and submit elsewhere, the process starts from scratch, so you might have to wait even longer and there's no guarantee the new journal will find reviewers quickly, either.






    share|improve this answer


























      0














      The average time taken to handle a paper varies by field. In the one I'm most familiar with (physics), the timeline looks like this.



      In your case, your paper has gone one month with reviewers invited but none that have accepted. That's not good and it's unlikely any of the reviewers will agree to review the manuscript now. If I were handling your paper, I'd be inviting new reviewers already; however it depends on how active your editor is. If your editor is busy/on holiday/not very active etc, then he or she might decide to wait another month before inviting new reviewers. The fact that the editor responded to your query however is a good sign that they're inviting reviewers already.



      So I would wait. I'd probably let the editor keep trying for another 2 months at least. As long as the editor is trying, he or she will eventually find reviewers. If you withdraw and submit elsewhere, the process starts from scratch, so you might have to wait even longer and there's no guarantee the new journal will find reviewers quickly, either.






      share|improve this answer
























        0












        0








        0






        The average time taken to handle a paper varies by field. In the one I'm most familiar with (physics), the timeline looks like this.



        In your case, your paper has gone one month with reviewers invited but none that have accepted. That's not good and it's unlikely any of the reviewers will agree to review the manuscript now. If I were handling your paper, I'd be inviting new reviewers already; however it depends on how active your editor is. If your editor is busy/on holiday/not very active etc, then he or she might decide to wait another month before inviting new reviewers. The fact that the editor responded to your query however is a good sign that they're inviting reviewers already.



        So I would wait. I'd probably let the editor keep trying for another 2 months at least. As long as the editor is trying, he or she will eventually find reviewers. If you withdraw and submit elsewhere, the process starts from scratch, so you might have to wait even longer and there's no guarantee the new journal will find reviewers quickly, either.






        share|improve this answer












        The average time taken to handle a paper varies by field. In the one I'm most familiar with (physics), the timeline looks like this.



        In your case, your paper has gone one month with reviewers invited but none that have accepted. That's not good and it's unlikely any of the reviewers will agree to review the manuscript now. If I were handling your paper, I'd be inviting new reviewers already; however it depends on how active your editor is. If your editor is busy/on holiday/not very active etc, then he or she might decide to wait another month before inviting new reviewers. The fact that the editor responded to your query however is a good sign that they're inviting reviewers already.



        So I would wait. I'd probably let the editor keep trying for another 2 months at least. As long as the editor is trying, he or she will eventually find reviewers. If you withdraw and submit elsewhere, the process starts from scratch, so you might have to wait even longer and there's no guarantee the new journal will find reviewers quickly, either.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 18 hours ago









        Allure

        26.4k1480129




        26.4k1480129















            Popular posts from this blog

            Questions related to Moebius Transform of Characteristic Function of the Primes

            List of scandals in India

            Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?