The publication process has changed drastically since I was a Ph.D. student. Before online manuscript submission, I watched as my Ph.D. advisor submitted our manuscript manually. We wrote our cover letter to the editor, put the required copies of the manuscript and the cover letter in a large brown envelope, and mailed it to the publisher. This marked the beginning of the waiting period. Without email, we just had to inspect the mailbox and wait for response. For my first manuscript, I must admit, the waiting period was very short, and envelope arrived, rather too quickly, with a very nice rejection letter from the editor. You need to grow thick skin early, in this business.
Times have changed since we had to watch the mailbox. Online submission provides easy availability for checking where your manuscript is in the review process. Auto-generated emails tell if you need revisions, if your manuscript would possibly be suited for another journal, or provide you with that glorious feeling that accompanies acceptance for publication.
Along with this new, faster submission process has come the idea that the waiting process from submission to decision should take little time as well. Some authors expect the review process to last 2 weeks and the editor's decision to be known immediately after that. If the process takes longer than this, tension and stress build. They may wonder “What else does the editor have to do besides deal with my paper?”
In order to help authors understand why they may have to wait 3–4 weeks for a decision on their manuscript, here is how manuscripts are typically processed. A manuscript comes in and after it passes initial quality control, I get an email telling me that reviewers need to be assigned. I log on to the Small GTPases website and take a look at the submission. After reading the cover letter and the manuscript, I may go the author's webpage(s). I may realize that the first author is a Ph.D. student and it looks as if this is their first submission. In this case, I can easily put myself in the Ph.D. student's place, and remember how it felt waiting for a decision. I would like this manuscript to be reviewed fairly, but quickly. I then begin searching for two available experts in the field to give a timely review of this manuscript. And so the review process begins.
I can also give insight into the process from the reviewer's and editor's standpoint. Often, they are already busy, writing grants and manuscripts, overseeing Ph.D. students, teaching classes and committees, attending meetings and conferences, and also fielding email requests to review manuscripts. Considering this workload, my email requests are often answered with “declined, too busy”. So, the search for reviewers continues, and after 5 or 6 declinations, one person accepts! Their reward for accepting: Email harassment if they fail to meet their deadline. “You've agreed to review this manuscript, remember? Why haven't you got it in on time?” This is a necessary, part of my role as editor-in-chief, but I would rather not have to send these reminders! I appreciate all who accept the invitation to review a manuscript. Afterall, you agreed to spend some of your precious time helping me and that Ph.D. student.
There have been many essays recently on the peer review process, and how it needs to be changed, but very few answers on how to improve it. Maybe we can tweak it here and there, talk about a more open process and such, but for the most part it works. I understand the frustration of both the authors and the reviewers. I want to take the time to thank all of you who clicked “Accept” on the Small GTPases site and agreed to review one of our author's manuscripts.