I am keeping my fingers crossed for one of the articles I have submitted, reviews should be back at the end of this month.
Results of these reviews are probably either reject (after 100 revisions) or another revision, since they have asked new reviewers.
This journal asks new reviewers every other time. I have had more than 5 revisions, each with 2 new reviewers. That is 10 reviewers. Each of the reviewers doing their best to find something to comment on.
Every time I write author comments in detail sometimes more than 2 pages, on these comments. And these are, I guess, never read, since I get no comment back on these, and the new reviewers comment on something else. And sometimes they comment on the same thing another already commented on. Abbreviate. No, Abbreviations are confusing.
Is this normal? The process has taken over 1,5 years now....
This sounds slightly unusual to me, although not really impossible. I once waited a year for 1 review of a paper, so I can understand 5 rounds (?) can easily take 1.5 years. However, I think they should have rejected it long ago if they feel like it needs new reviewers every time. Also, by now they surely ran out of reviewers who really know the subject??
ReplyDeleteMaybe write the editor and politely tell them you will revise once more, but that's it (politely). They are unlikely to pull it out after they put so much work into it too, so it wouldn't ruin your chances of getting it published in this journal.