On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 6:54 PM, Benjamin Cramer <mailto:truempyi@YAHOO.COM> wrote: >Most reviewers spend >about an hour on a manuscript (as a grad student in training I've gotten >down to about 3 hours), but it can easily take a week or two to get to a >manuscript. Administrative assistants in editorial offices have assured >me that if the review doesn't come back in under a month, that reviewer >gets a little X next to their name in the database and never gets another >manuscript from that journal again. Hello Ben, Your posts are extremely interesting, Ben. Please don't unsubscribe! A comment on your experiences, though: The assistant's task is made easier if you get your stuff in early. And perhaps this actually is her personal policy for the grad students she finds to read papers for her. But she (or they) might be pulling your leg just a bit too; I wouldn't assume absolute or universal truth to it. The rigidity of the policy doesn't apply to the situations I know about (involving persons with established reputations and long track records in doing journal reviews). You might find that it stops applying strictly to you, too, once you get your degree and have submitted a bunch of fairly long and helpful commentaries--of the kind that couldn't possibly be produced in an hour. I am having trouble imagining writing anything very thoughtful in an hour's time! -- Best wishes, Slow Mary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 05 2000 - 23:00:11 AEST