Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the status change of a submitted paper to the journal "Physica Scripta." Participants explore potential reasons for the unusual status updates during the peer review process, including reviewer dynamics and editorial decisions. The conversation touches on the implications of submitting similar papers to different journals and the common practices in the review process.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- One participant suggests that the author may have submitted substantially similar papers to different journals, which could lead to confusion if the same referee is involved.
- Another participant questions the assumption of similarity between the papers, emphasizing the need for evidence before making such claims.
- Concerns are raised about the commonality of reviewers declining invitations after initially accepting, with a request for clarification on this practice.
- Several reasons are proposed for why a review process might not proceed as expected, including disagreements between referees, conflicts of interest, lack of expertise, or referees failing to report back.
- One participant advises contacting the editor directly for clarity rather than speculating on the situation.
- It is noted that the median time from submission to decision is 52 days, suggesting that the author's concerns about a 25-day wait may be premature.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the implications of submitting similar papers and the reasons for the status change. There is no consensus on the specific cause of the issue, and multiple competing explanations are presented.
Contextual Notes
Participants acknowledge that many factors could influence the review process, and the discussion remains speculative without definitive information from the journal.