In article <1993Dec20.204932.27287 at midway.uchicago.edu>, jm68 at quads.uchicago.edu
(James R. Mensch Jr.) says:
>> While I sympathize with your desire for quick feedback on submitted
>articles, does (would) not multiple simultaneous submission result in
>greater editorial/reviewer load, and thus increase the eventual lag?
>I am assuming that others will choose as their "secondary..." journal your
>(or anyones) "primary" journal. The ultimate solution to the problem
>would seem to lie in improving the efficiency of the review process.
Precisely! The more inefficient the reviewing process, the more people
will tend to submit to multiple journals simultaneously, and the more the
editorial/reviewer load, and so the more inefficient the reviewing process
becomes. But this is the way the process is going. In my experience review-
ing times are taking longer and longer. If we are to break the cycle
editors must strive to get reviewers to respond promptly and here, on
the Internet, we must advise each other of those journals which are not
giving prompt reviews.(One cannot always judge this by the dates onwhich
journals SAY they received a paper. Some journals will redate a paper at
the least excuse.)
Sincerely, Don Forsdyke
Discussion Leader. Bionet.Journals.Note
