Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the experiences of participants regarding the submission process to the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ), focusing on the timeline and expectations for receiving feedback after submitting a manuscript. It includes insights into the peer review process and personal anecdotes related to publication experiences.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- One participant, Strangerone, inquires about the typical duration from submission to receiving feedback from the ApJ editorial board, noting that their submission has been in progress for 1.5 months.
- Another participant outlines the general peer review process, highlighting potential delays due to reviewer availability and the volunteer nature of the review system.
- A participant with experience publishing in ApJ shares that the initial assignment to a senior editor typically occurs within a few days, and suggests that 1.5 months is on the longer side for receiving the first review.
- There is a suggestion that if no feedback is received after two months, it may be appropriate to contact the journal's editor for an update.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express varying experiences and expectations regarding the timeline for feedback from ApJ, indicating that there is no consensus on the typical duration, with some suggesting it may take longer than others expect.
Contextual Notes
Participants mention factors that could influence the review timeline, such as the niche nature of the research and the responsiveness of reviewers, but do not resolve these uncertainties.