Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the status of a submitted paper to the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, specifically addressing the implications of the "awaiting decision" status after a month of waiting for referee reports. Participants share their experiences and opinions regarding typical timelines in the peer review process.
Discussion Character
Main Points Raised
- One participant expresses concern that the delay in the "awaiting decision" status might be a negative signal.
- Another participant counters that two weeks with the editors is not unusual and suggests that delays could be due to various reasons such as the editor's workload or personal circumstances.
- A third participant shares their experience, stating that anything less than six months is normal in their view.
- A fourth participant advises against trying to read too much into the status and suggests focusing on other work in the meantime.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the "awaiting decision" status, with some expressing concern while others argue that delays are typical and not necessarily indicative of issues.