Why would a small paper (10 pages) with an important result take over a year to get accepted?












20














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










share|improve this question







New contributor




user102748 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 12




    It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
    – Pieter Naaijkens
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago








  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 5




    "Primes is in P" They sure is.
    – Joel Reyes Noche
    2 days ago
















20














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










share|improve this question







New contributor




user102748 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 12




    It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
    – Pieter Naaijkens
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago








  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 5




    "Primes is in P" They sure is.
    – Joel Reyes Noche
    2 days ago














20












20








20


3





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










share|improve this question







New contributor




user102748 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











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






share|improve this question







New contributor




user102748 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




user102748 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




user102748 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









user102748user102748

10413




10413




New contributor




user102748 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user102748 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user102748 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 12




    It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
    – Pieter Naaijkens
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago








  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 5




    "Primes is in P" They sure is.
    – Joel Reyes Noche
    2 days ago














  • 12




    It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
    – Pieter Naaijkens
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago








  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 5




    "Primes is in P" They sure is.
    – Joel Reyes Noche
    2 days ago








12




12




It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
– Pieter Naaijkens
2 days ago




It may be a typo on the page. The PDF of the article says received 24 January 2003.
– Pieter Naaijkens
2 days ago




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
2 days ago






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
2 days ago






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
2 days ago




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
2 days ago




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
2 days ago




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
2 days ago




5




5




"Primes is in P" They sure is.
– Joel Reyes Noche
2 days ago




"Primes is in P" They sure is.
– Joel Reyes Noche
2 days ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















28














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




  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
    – Buffy
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago










  • @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
    yesterday










  • If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
    – Spark
    yesterday



















17














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.



enter image description here



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.






share|improve this answer





























    15















    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.






    share|improve this answer





























      7














      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".






      share|improve this answer





























        4














        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.






        share|improve this answer





















          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
          });


          }
          });






          user102748 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          28














          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




          1. 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.

          2. 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).

          3. 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.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 2




            I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
            – Buffy
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago










          • @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
            yesterday










          • If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
            – Spark
            yesterday
















          28














          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




          1. 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.

          2. 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).

          3. 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.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 2




            I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
            – Buffy
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago










          • @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
            yesterday










          • If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
            – Spark
            yesterday














          28












          28








          28






          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




          1. 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.

          2. 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).

          3. 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.






          share|improve this answer














          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




          1. 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.

          2. 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).

          3. 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.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered 2 days ago









          SparkSpark

          2,2781315




          2,2781315








          • 2




            I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
            – Buffy
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago










          • @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
            yesterday










          • If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
            – Spark
            yesterday














          • 2




            I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
            – Buffy
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago










          • @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
            yesterday










          • If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
            – Spark
            yesterday








          2




          2




          I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
          – Buffy
          2 days ago




          I hope you are just guessing on the last point - especially about "friends".
          – Buffy
          2 days ago




          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
          2 days ago




          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
          2 days ago




          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
          2 days ago




          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
          2 days ago












          @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
          yesterday




          @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
          yesterday












          If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
          – Spark
          yesterday




          If that is what is understood from my comment, I'll change it. Thanks!
          – Spark
          yesterday











          17














          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.



          enter image description here



          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.






          share|improve this answer


























            17














            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.



            enter image description here



            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.






            share|improve this answer
























              17












              17








              17






              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.



              enter image description here



              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.






              share|improve this answer












              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.



              enter image description here



              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 2 days ago









              AllureAllure

              27.4k1482134




              27.4k1482134























                  15















                  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.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    15















                    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.






                    share|improve this answer
























                      15












                      15








                      15







                      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.






                      share|improve this answer













                      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.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 2 days ago









                      David RicherbyDavid Richerby

                      29k658120




                      29k658120























                          7














                          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".






                          share|improve this answer


























                            7














                            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".






                            share|improve this answer
























                              7












                              7








                              7






                              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".






                              share|improve this answer












                              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".







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 2 days ago









                              Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami

                              3,0921220




                              3,0921220























                                  4














                                  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.






                                  share|improve this answer


























                                    4














                                    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.






                                    share|improve this answer
























                                      4












                                      4








                                      4






                                      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.






                                      share|improve this answer












                                      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.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 2 days ago









                                      BuffyBuffy

                                      39k9125201




                                      39k9125201






















                                          user102748 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded


















                                          user102748 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                          user102748 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                          user102748 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                          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.





                                          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                          • 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.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          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





















































                                          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







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Список кардиналов, возведённых папой римским Каликстом III

                                          Deduzione

                                          Mysql.sock missing - “Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket”