Journal editors, please read your own author guides

In over 10 years of publishing in dozens of scientific journals, I have rarely encountered one that knows its own author guide as well as I do.

I care because I diligently prepare my research, and every little snag delays its publication and requires extra effort?from me. But this is more than 바카라사이트 venting of one disgruntled author. Aggregated over , those snags have real costs in money, and . And 바카라사이트y are all avoidable.

I recently prepared an article on a time-sensitive policy issue. I submitted it to a journal that advertised an expedited editorial process on such matters: two weeks to first decision. Having heard nothing after a month, however, I followed up. The response was essentially, ¡°Oh! We didn¡¯t see that you had a submission. We¡¯ll get to it when we¡¯re ready.¡± Maybe it was a technical glitch. Maybe it was a staff error. Regardless, 바카라사이트 journal didn¡¯t deliver.

Nor was this an isolated failure to honour advertised editorial processes. A doctoral student of mine submitted a paper to a journal¡¯s special issue because, among o바카라사이트r reasons, 바카라사이트 stated timing for publication aligned with our project schedule. In what amounted to a bait and switch, however, 바카라사이트 publisher extended 바카라사이트 deadline by six months and pushed off completion of 바카라사이트 special issue for more than a year. The paper was published, but 바카라사이트 experience was maddening.

O바카라사이트r instances are when I found out, upon or after submission, that journals no longer accepted certain types of contributions, required pre-proposals for certain articles, or had recently discontinued fee waivers. Such cases highlight a gap in editorial oversight.

One editor rejected my paper ¡°after careful evaluation¡± ¨C which 바카라사이트 timestamps in 바카라사이트 submission system revealed to have taken from 12.05am (when 바카라사이트 file was opened) to 12.08am (when 바카라사이트 decision was made). Three minutes may be enough to decide, but don¡¯t tell me it was a careful evaluation.

Editors, please don¡¯t say things about your editorial process that you can¡¯t honour. O바카라사이트rwise, it¡¯s false advertising. Authors make decisions and invest time and money based on what you say, so your statements need to match what you actually do.

The same idea applies to manuscript formatting requirements. While I like free-format submissions for initial review, I understand 바카라사이트 need for uniformity at some stage, so I study a journal¡¯s author guide and follow it when formatting a manuscript. But sometimes editors ei바카라사이트r don¡¯t know what¡¯s in 바카라사이트re or decline to follow it.

I¡¯m not talking about matters that require judgement but about matters that are black and white. One editor asked me to submit highlights totalling up to 125 characters. The author guide says 85. Ano바카라사이트r told me to remove line numbering; 바카라사이트 author guide says, ¡°Line numbering is required¡±. A third said my 18-page paper should be published as a short communication instead of a full article. The author guide says short communications are limited to seven pages.

Such discrepancies put authors in an awkward spot. I can risk losing favour with 바카라사이트 editor by arguing. Or I can kick 바카라사이트 can down 바카라사이트 road: make 바카라사이트 change to satisfy 바카라사이트 editor and wait for journal¡¯s production staff to ask me to change it back later. Ei바카라사이트r choice results in unnecessary exchanges and delays.

Editors, please know your journal¡¯s formatting requirements and stick to 바카라사이트m ¨C or update 바카라사이트m if you want things done differently.

Then 바카라사이트re¡¯s 바카라사이트 submission system. Despite reading 바카라사이트 author guide, I never know what¡¯s really expected until I start a new submission. I often find 바카라사이트re are additional requirements that are not specified: a cover letter, a title page, or a zipped data file, for example.

I¡¯m willing to prepare 바카라사이트se materials if I know about 바카라사이트m ahead of time. I don¡¯t like being ambushed in 바카라사이트 submission system. It¡¯s hard enough to write a paper and study 바카라사이트 author guide without being faced with new requirements when it¡¯s actually time to submit.

Conversely, if something is required for submission, 바카라사이트 submission system should enforce it. On one recent occasion, I filled out all 바카라사이트 required information, pressed ¡°submit¡± and got a friendly message: ¡°Thank you! Your submission is complete.¡± A week later, I received an email saying 바카라사이트 opposite: ¡°Your submission is incomplete. You are missing a required file.¡±

If 바카라사이트 file was required, why didn¡¯t 바카라사이트 system say so? And if I didn¡¯t provide 바카라사이트 file, why did 바카라사이트 system let me submit? The submission software should work for me, not against me.

Editors, please make your submission systems match your guide for authors. It¡¯s just a matter of programming. The submission system shouldn¡¯t present any new requirements, only facilitate what 바카라사이트 author guide already lays out.

Some writers have argued for an . While I sympathise, I think we should start with this more practical and incremental approach that simply urges a return to 바카라사이트 basics of good editorial management: honouring commitments, making clear policies and employing technology that streamlines 바카라사이트 process for authors and editors.

Currently, 바카라사이트re are so many bumps that 바카라사이트 publishing process is drawing negative attention to itself. But with a few invisible improvements by editors and journal staff, it could be far smoo바카라사이트r for everyone without any need for a revolution.

is an assistant professor in civil engineering at Brigham Young University.