5

I have submitted a manuscript on COVID-19 to a scientific journal in mid-2020. Since then, I have not heard from the journal, although the status says 'Under Review'. As the publication is related to COVID-19, I believe that it is imperative to disseminate the publication as soon as possible once it is accepted. However, as it has been more than half a year, I am afraid that my manuscript's findings are obsolete once it is published, especially considering that evidence related to COVID-19 is quickly expanding.

I have posted the paper to a preprint database. However, I believe that it is important for the peer-reviewed publication to be disseminated at the earliest. In this regard, I have tried contacting the editorial office several times, but I have not received any replies yet. I am afraid that the editorial process may cost me my publication, especially considering that it has been more than half a year since I gathered the evidence.

Is there any suggestion on what I should do?

Azor Ahai -him-
  • 30,111
  • 9
  • 88
  • 115
amedicalwriter
  • 51
  • 1
  • 4
    If you have already contacted the editor there is probably not much more that you can do. Perhaps do that again, politely. – Ethan Bolker Jan 22 '21 at 15:53
  • 2
    There are a few different potential concerns mixed together here, e.g. (1) your work will have limited visibility because it's not in a peer-reviewed venue; (2) your work will have less acceptance because it's not in a peer-reviewed venue; (3) your work will have trouble being accepted if the review process is so slow that it's no longer relevant by the time it's reviewed (and if rejected it will be harder to get accepted in a new venue). Can you say which of these you're (most) worried about, and clarify what you mean by "cost me my publication"? – Ben Bolker Jan 22 '21 at 16:21
  • 3
    If the paper is good science then it should be timeless. If it is something other than good science then you may have the wrong venue. In particular, things that demand action now are poor topics for journal articles. – Buffy Jan 22 '21 at 16:57
  • Thank you very much. I'll try contacting them again with a more intense manner @EthanBolker – amedicalwriter Jan 22 '21 at 17:37
  • I believe I am currently most afraid of number (3). With the rapid dissemination and availability of preprints in several databases (Europe PMC, PubMed, WHO Database), I don't think I will have to worry about number (1). Furthermore, I believe that the quality of the study and analysis will determine whether the work will be accepted by the global scientists. On the other hand, if the findings are obsolete, I don't think there will be a way to salvage the paper. @BenBolker – amedicalwriter Jan 22 '21 at 17:39
  • @BenBolker What I meant by "cost me my publication" is that I worry that my paper will be more likely to perish if it is not accepted in the journal, especially considering the long editorial process. – amedicalwriter Jan 22 '21 at 17:44
  • 3
    @Buffy I agree that a good paper will last for indefinite time. However, as my paper is based on secondary data (i.e. systematic review), there will be many new studies by the time my paper is published, and the findings may be obsolete as the pooled results may differ when the new studies are incorporated to the model – amedicalwriter Jan 22 '21 at 17:45
  • 4
    @Buffy "If the paper is good science then it should be timeless" - yes and no. Papers become obsolete whether or not they contain "good science". There are also times when certain areas of research are particularly hot such that the impact of a paper is greatest within a particular time window. Some medical journals see everything they publish as demanding action now due to the direct relevance to patient care that is ongoing, and top journals have some editorial criteria that translate to something like "only papers that will make a clinical impact today". – Bryan Krause Jan 22 '21 at 18:11
  • @BryanKrause, not this journal, apparently. – Buffy Jan 22 '21 at 19:49
  • @Buffy Agreed - and that's why OP is asking what to do about it (as far as I can tell). – Bryan Krause Jan 22 '21 at 19:53
  • @BryanKrause, I worry, though, that the OP is only worried about the cost to them and not the implications for clinical usage. – Buffy Jan 22 '21 at 20:00
  • Does this answer your question? What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? – Anonymous Physicist Jan 23 '21 at 03:50
  • Submission date MUST be considered before rejecting a paper solely based on novelty. Also, claiming first publication is one thing, novelty it is completely different. It is not that the paper arriving second is obsolete! Back to the first point: no serious editor / honest referee can keep a paper months then claiming that the paper isn't new because a similar one appeared last week. So you shouldn't loose a paper. But I will be very disappointed, too. – Alchimista Jan 23 '21 at 12:56
  • Which journal / journal family? –  Jan 25 '21 at 04:25

1 Answers1

5

Based on the discussion in the comments, i.e. given that your primary concern is that the paper might be rejected after a very slow editorial process and then be hard to get accepted at another journal because it is no longer relevant/"hot"/topical/etc ...

I think you have only two (not entirely distinct) choices.

  1. As suggested by @EthanBolker, try the editorial office again (politely but firmly).
  2. Contact the editorial office and let them know that you're withdrawing the paper from review. Unfortunately, this means that you have to start the review process all over again at another journal (you should probably explain the history of the paper in your cover letter). If you are willing to sacrifice impact factor for speed, you might try an 'open' venue like Faculty of 1000 Coronavirus papers or (if you or one of your collaborators has Wellcome funding) Wellcome Open Research.
Ben Bolker
  • 4,873
  • 1
  • 20
  • 32