0

I submitted a manuscript to a Taylor & Francis journal. Three days later they asked me to remove author identifying information from the anonymous manuscript before they could send it for review, I think they were referring to a self-citation. I resubmitted the manuscript 2 weeks later, and this time I didn't receive a confirmation e-mail. The status of "submitted to journal" hasn't changed for six days. Is there something wrong resumitting the manuscript 2 weeks later just to remove author identifying information? Is it too much time for "submitted to journal" status?

sophie ooo
  • 21
  • 2

2 Answers2

3

Is there something wrong resumitting the manuscript 2 weeks later just to remove author identifying information?

No, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not an unusual amount of time for any academic to take to do anything, and it's not like anybody would have been inconvenienced by the time taken. They just wouldn't do anything with the manuscript in the meantime. And it would be really stupid of a journal to reject a potentially valuable paper just because the author took some time to complete an administrative chore.

Is [six days] too much time for "submitted to journal" status?

See above: it's not unusual for any academic to take more than six days to respond to anything. It's possible that they just haven't gotten to it yet, or that they are working on the paper but haven't updated the status in the system. (See also What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?)

I would say that if you have not seen any updates after another 1-2 weeks, it would be reasonable to contact the editor and ask if they successfully received your revised manuscript.

Nate Eldredge
  • 133,015
  • 44
  • 379
  • 480
0

Your timing is fine and the journal might simply have not updated the details. These are strange times for all academia, and editors, referees etc are probably overwhelmed with preparations for next year. Even in normal times, this is well within a reasonable time frame.

I suppose you have already removed all information from the front page, including names, contact details, institutions, acknowledgments etc, so there might be a link, a watermark or an email address somewhere. A self-citation would have to be quite explicit to cause such a request. "We expand on X and Y (1734)" is quite different than "We expand on our/ the authors' previous work in X and Y (1734)".