3

Why do Reviewers intentionally delay or write negligent reports?

I submitted a manuscript to a SCI indexed journal 7 months back. It was under review for 5 months. I received a report which said "The results are interesting but the paper is very long. Also it does not fit the aims and scopes of the journal. Hence rejected."

The report involved no constructive criticism, no ways to improve the manuscript. Moreover if the manuscript was not under the aims and scopes why would the Editor even send it for review?

Is it that the Reviewer was trying to find something in the manuscript for 5 months so that it could fit the aims and scopes but when he/she could not, he/she rejected it. I don't think that's the case though.

My question is why do reviewers do these things.

  1. If they are not willing to review a paper, why do they even accept the invitation for review?
  2. Secondly reviewers are authors themselves, why don't they value the time and effort of another author.
  3. Thirdly, if they find that a paper is not within the aims and scopes, why don't they inform it early? It certainly does not take 5 months to decide it?

What can I do to avoid this kind of behaviour from the Reviewers side? Is there any solution?

Any help is appreciated.

Charlotte
  • 1,380
  • 2
  • 10
  • 25
  • 9
  • We accept to review a paper because we thought the paper is interesting after reading the Title+Abstract. 2. They do, but they also expect other authors to carry out the research processes properly. For example, if I find that authors didn't do a good job in the due diligence phase, I'll reject the paper. Another example is a poorly written paper. A reviewer's job is not to write a paper for the authors. So a simple/terse feedback is to ask the authors to come back when the paper is up to standard.
    • – Prof. Santa Claus Jun 08 '21 at 04:50
  • A possible reason is that the editor didn't do a good job or the reviewers do not know the aim and scope of the journal.
    • – Prof. Santa Claus Jun 08 '21 at 04:53
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? – Anonymous Physicist Jun 08 '21 at 06:01
  • @AnonymousPhysicist, No, I find my question different from the one linked – Charlotte Jun 08 '21 at 06:03
  • 3
    If you look at that question, you will see that the five months might not have been used by the reviewer. – Anonymous Physicist Jun 08 '21 at 06:03
  • https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/115231/why-is-peer-review-so-random – Anonymous Physicist Jun 08 '21 at 06:06
  • "it does not fit the aims and scopes of the journal" sounds like something from the editor, not the reviewer. Yet, I agree that 5 months is a very long time. – sleepy Jun 08 '21 at 08:12
  • Much of reasons could be under that 5 months delay. If you want to listen that the report was of no quality, well I agree. And even that referees inducing delay do exist as well. You can't avoid these things. In principle good journals should be evaluated also for these aspects.... I think it is more on their side. – Alchimista Jun 08 '21 at 08:47