Questions and Answers

Why does it take so long to have a manuscript reviewed?

 

A good question about the most common complaint that authors voice. Just about everyone has a horror story to tell. I've personally had papers vanish into the review process for over 9 months. It is scary to think you could have a child in the time it could take to have your paper reviewed. I didn't appreciate fully the reasons behind the maddening delays until I worked the other side of the editorial fence. I know now that there are vastly more papers submitted than there are qualified and diligent reviewers to evaluate those papers. And worse, the best reviewers are rewarded for their efforts by being sent even more papers! At BASP we try to shorten the review process in two ways. First, we use a two-tier review system. The initial screen by the Editor eliminates from further review those papers that are inappropriate for the journal or that contain such obvious flaws that they would not be acceptable without further data collection. The papers that pass that initial screen are then sent on to reviewers who are encouraged to return reviews within one month. Reminders, and if necessary, additional reviewers are used to get timely evaluations.

 

Why does it take so long to see an accepted paper in print?

 

The publication lag depends on the backlog of accepted manuscripts and the normal time it takes to publish each issue. Remember that once a paper is accepted by the editor, it must be copy edited, turned into galley proofs, proofread by the authors, returned for corrections, typeset, and finally published and mailed. It is no suprise then that from acceptance to print, the lag can be 9 months to a year.

 

What determines the membership of the editorial board?

 

You might think that it is shameless cronyism, but that is only part of the story. To be sure, editors do put their friends on the editorial board, but then their friends are quite frequently very gifted scholars whose evaluations will help maintain the high standards of quality that any good journal seeks. On the other hand, most of the members of an editorial board have worked their way into that position by their timely, constructive, and critical evaluations. That is certainly true at BASP. I only know personally and well about 3 or 4 people on our editorial board. The rest are just plain hard-working and careful reviewers whose expertise I have sought frequently and who have provided excellent help in the past. For that reason, the composition of the editorial board will change some from year to year as particularly helpful reviewers are rewarded for their efforts.

 

How are reviewers selected?

 

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and willingness to share it. This often means that the "big names" in the profession are called upon frequently to review papers. But, their time is scarce and they cannot heed every call for their help, so editors frequently use new members to the profession to serve this vital role. In fact, it is an excellent way to learn about the publication process and to get involved in the profession in a very important way. Multiple reviewers are selected for each paper to provide multiple and often unique perspectives on the quality of the research and value of its contribution.

 

Can research be "too basic" or "too applied" for BASP?

 

Yes, one of the more common criticisms by reviewers of papers submitted to BASP is that they have not struck a good balance between the basic and applied missions of the journal. But, this is rarely a "fatal flaw." Basic researchers are frequently called upon to make a convincing case for the applied implications of their work--not too difficult a job for most scientists. They probably entered the profession because they thought their work would matter in some way. The job is bit more difficult for the more applied researcher if the research was not conceptually grounded from the beginning. But, completely atheoretical work is rare, so even here the conceptual merits can be articulated with some work.