Close

Complete Captcha

• 8 years - 14 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 0 Goods vs 0 No Goods

1. Economist
   c25d
   

   Several years ago, I got an R&R at top field. I have never resubmitted - it's a long story, so don't ask but let's just say it's combination of "I hate this paper", "I don't believe in this paper anymore" and the discovery of major problems with it. I am leaving it there because of the option value, which expires at some point but last time I checked, has not yet.

   Present day - I have a new manuscript that I think would be a reasonable fit for this same journal where I have the tardy R&R.
   What exactly are the downsides associated with submission that I should know of ex ante, particular with respect to how a new submission harms the old R&R, and then secondly, how it affects the current manuscript.

   These have different coauthors, also, so do I have to talk to the old coauthor about this decision, and if so, precisely why is that the case? (These are all serious questions - I'm completely unsure of the etiquette involved in coauthorships, and various stuff related to publications. Rarely does it overlap with something I interact with outside the academic context, giving me less intuition).

   8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 2 No Good !

2. Economist
   5049
   

   Perfectly fine to do this. Up until recently, I had three manuscripts in variou stages of production at the same top field journal. Two weeks ago, one was accepted. For the other two, one is under (second) review after an R&R, and the other one is a fresh submission and has been under review for almost two months.

   Several years ago, I got an R&R at top field. I have never resubmitted - it's a long story, so don't ask but let's just say it's combination of "I hate this paper", "I don't believe in this paper anymore" and the discovery of major problems with it. I am leaving it there because of the option value, which expires at some point but last time I checked, has not yet.
   Present day - I have a new manuscript that I think would be a reasonable fit for this same journal where I have the tardy R&R.
   What exactly are the downsides associated with submission that I should know of ex ante, particular with respect to how a new submission harms the old R&R, and then secondly, how it affects the current manuscript.
   These have different coauthors, also, so do I have to talk to the old coauthor about this decision, and if so, precisely why is that the case? (These are all serious questions - I'm completely unsure of the etiquette involved in coauthorships, and various stuff related to publications. Rarely does it overlap with something I interact with outside the academic context, giving me less intuition).

   8 years ago # QUOTE 3 Good 0 No Good !

3. Economist
   c25d
   

   0493 - so, to your answer, you seem to be implying that there is literally no length of time that a paper is under R&R that would be relevant at all when making my decision to resubmit? I ask because I genuinely have no clue what the preferences of an editor are. For instance, if I haven't resubmitted my paper in a long time, what have I been doing? If you see this new paper, then you know I've been working on it among other things. Do they care? Why would they? It's not like we're going steady. Does my R&R, though, take up some non-negligible resources at the journal such that it is costly for me to keep it open? I'm mainly worried of doing something so clearly of bad form that it harms me professionally. But it sounds like you're saying that in your experience, it didn't seem to do so.

   8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

4. Economist
   5049
   

   Indeed, it doesn't seem so at the field journal I'm talking about, but your mileage may vary. Back in the day, had you told the editor that you weren't going to resubmit? Or did you simply let it burn off? Did they send you reminders to which you never replied? I am convinced they won't mind; editors understand that it's not personal, and I don't think your paper ever "clogged" their system.

   0493 - so, to your answer, you seem to be implying that there is literally no length of time that a paper is under R&R that would be relevant at all when making my decision to resubmit? I ask because I genuinely have no clue what the preferences of an editor are. For instance, if I haven't resubmitted my paper in a long time, what have I been doing? If you see this new paper, then you know I've been working on it among other things. Do they care? Why would they? It's not like we're going steady. Does my R&R, though, take up some non-negligible resources at the journal such that it is costly for me to keep it open? I'm mainly worried of doing something so clearly of bad form that it harms me professionally. But it sounds like you're saying that in your experience, it didn't seem to do so.

   8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

5. Economist
   c25d
   

   Indeed, it doesn't seem so at the field journal I'm talking about, but your mileage may vary. Back in the day, had you told the editor that you weren't going to resubmit? Or did you simply let it burn off? Did they send you reminders to which you never replied? I am convinced they won't mind; editors understand that it's not personal, and I don't think your paper ever "clogged" their system.

   I got a weak R&R back in the day, and told them I would resubmit. I never got a reminder, though.

   Okay, this is helpful. Had you asked me this in the abstract, i would have also said that barring some capacity constraint and an opportunity cost to my paper being R&R, that there's no reason they'd care. Thanks 0493.

   If others have thoughts that differ or otherwise, I'd be appreciate hearing them. Thanks.

   8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

6. Economist
   c927
   

   There's really no problem with submitting the new paper. If your R&R is several years old, then they would be within their rights to desk reject a resubmission (e.g., the editor may have changed), but even that's not a given (I know of excessively slow yet successful resubmissions) and, in any case, not your question.

   8 years ago # QUOTE 3 Good 0 No Good !

7. Economist
   5049
   

   True, but to be fair, several journals now try to enforce a six-month constrain on R&Rs to avoid having some manuscripts remain in the pipeline for years on end.

   There's really no problem with submitting the new paper. If your R&R is several years old, then they would be within their rights to desk reject a resubmission (e.g., the editor may have changed), but even that's not a given (I know of excessively slow yet successful resubmissions) and, in any case, not your question.

   8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

8. Economist
   a080
   

   I have also recieved more reject and resubmits where it is an outright rejection but the editor has informed me I can resubmit the paper again and he'd send it to completely new reviewers and assign new manuscript numbers etc. Perhaps this is to avoid the clogged pipeline problem.

   8 years ago # QUOTE 2 Good 0 No Good !

9. Economist
   47b7
   

   Many journals explicitly say that resubmissions after x months will be treated as new submissions.

   8 years ago # QUOTE 3 Good 0 No Good !

10. Economist
    5049
    

    Isn't this to juke their stats and lower the percentage of fresh submissions they eventually accept?

    I have also recieved more reject and resubmits where it is an outright rejection but the editor has informed me I can resubmit the paper again and he'd send it to completely new reviewers and assign new manuscript numbers etc. Perhaps this is to avoid the clogged pipeline problem.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 2 Good 0 No Good !

11. Economist
    c25d
    

    Keep it coming. Incredibly helpful. I will probably just lurk from here on out, so please continue discussing just what is going on. I actually did not really know this about the assignment of new manuscript numbers, and things of that nature. Even with a few publications under my belt, publishing still feels like a black box.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

12. Economist
    aecb
    

    I have a similar issue. The RR is 3 years old now. I am not sure what to do with it at this point. The journal is good though. The reason of such a long delay is simple: I was working on other, more exciting papers, that happen to be accepted now.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 2 Good 0 No Good !

13. Economist
    c25d
    

    I have a similar issue. The RR is 3 years old now. I am not sure what to do with it at this point. The journal is good though. The reason of such a long delay is simple: I was working on other, more exciting papers, that happen to be accepted now.

    That's actually more or less my reason, too.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

14. Economist
    fac8
    

    Just to be the dissenting voice here:

    If the same editor/AE is still there, you run the risk of a grudge. (The courteous thing, of course, is to let an AE know about a paper you're abandoning if they've asked you to R&R it). If they've spent time collecting and synthesizing reviews, and crafting an R&R invite, and you let it die without saying anything, you might find them a bit snarky with you. That could translate into some troubles with your new paper. I think it would be rare to find an AE that petty about something like that, BUT I think you do owe it to your co-authors to let them know and make their determination.

    Your history with the journal adds a tiny bit of risk to your submission's chances, and your coauthors deserve to know about that risk so they can make an informed decision.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

Reply

Post

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.