Why does Physics Letters B still say "with editor"?

[thedaybefore]

On Wednesday, the editor, Scott Dodelson, sent me the following email, but the status page still says "with editor".

Physics Letters B
Title: The Universe
Dear Mr. Todd,
Thank you for your recent submission to Physics Letters B.
However, before we can send your manuscript out for review, please note that we would like you to make the following changes/corrections:
1) Please upload the revised version
2)
To make these amendments, please login to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author.

After getting the email, I thought that the manuscript would be in review by now. If I'm wrong, the editor should now because the analysis is short and clear. However, if I'm right, then they should be doing something because the claims made in the paper are very significant.

 

[fzero]

Was there another email suggesting the revisions referred to in step 1? Did you submit the revised version? The letter is clear that the manuscript won't be sent to referees until you do so.

It's not unusual for a manuscript to sit in an editorial queue for a long time, but you haven't mentioned how long it's been since you originally submitted it.

 

[thedaybefore]

Initially after submission, I noticed an error, so I emailed the editor a revised version, which is what they wanted me to upload a day or two later. I did upload the revisedmanuscript and sent an email to Dodelson

I was thinking that since the conclusions of the paper are very significant, that they would try to review it quickly or that Dodelson would tell me that I'm wrong..

 

[fzero]

Either email to say that the revised version has already been uploaded or just reupload the revision. I'd assume the editor is automatically notified when you upload but that it's possible that the original notification was lost in a stack of emails. Good luck!

 

[Choppy]

I was thinking that since the conclusions of the paper are very significant, that they would try to review it quickly or that Dodelson would tell me that I'm wrong..

The process doesn't work like this.

If the paper is appropriate for the journal it will be sent out for review. No one will bump the priority because the conclusions are "very significant." In fact, if anything, the more "significant" the result, the longer it's likely to take to review because the reviewers will have to go over it more thoroughly.

If you have questions about the specifics of your submission, just email the journal manager.

Also note that many parts of the world just had a long weekend, and conference season is coming up. So I wouldn't expect things to move too quickly right now anyway.

 

[thedaybefore]

Thanks! I searched the Physics letters B website for something like a journal manager but couldn't find anything. However, I did email the editor a few hours back and asked him if he could give me a status update or a timeline, but he hasn't said anything. Maybe there are journal rles that limit what he can say.

I guess the journal's idea of "rapid publication" and mine are different and I'll have to try to be patient and try to turn my attention to something else.

 

[thedaybefore]

The process doesn't work like this.

If the paper is appropriate for the journal it will be sent out for review. No one will bump the priority because the conclusions are "very significant." In fact, if anything, the more "significant" the result, the longer it's likely to take to review because the reviewers will have to go over it more thoroughly.

If you have questions about the specifics of your submission, just email the journal manager.

Also note that many parts of the world just had a long weekend, and conference season is coming up. So I wouldn't expect things to move too quickly right now anyway.

It has been more than another week and it still says "with editor" and the journal does say it provides "rapid publication". I wish I couold know what is going on, but the editor did not respond to my email last Tuesday and Elsevior just said that the status is "with editor" and that the editor would tell me when something important happened. At what point do you think it would be appropriate for me to send another email to the editor?.

 

[Vagn]

It has been more than another week and it still says "with editor" and the journal does say it provides "rapid publication". I wish I couold know what is going on, but the editor did not respond to my email last Tuesday and Elsevior just said that the status is "with editor" and that the editor would tell me when something important happened. At what point do you think it would be appropriate for me to send another email to the editor?.

Have a look at how long its taken other similar articles to be published in the journal, just looking through the most recent issue, there were papers that were first submitted May 2014, the most recent was in February. It may be the case that the editor is trying to find suitable referee.

 

[thedaybefore]

Have a look at how long its taken other similar articles to be published in the journal, just looking through the most recent issue, there were papers that were first submitted May 2014, the most recent was in February. It may be the case that the editor is trying to find suitable referee.

There is one article that was received on 12 May 2015 and published 19 May 2015. That doesn't seem fair.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Was this paper really titled "The Universe"? Does it describe a theory you developed? Is it fair to say that you do not read PLB regularly?

 

[thedaybefore]

Was this paper really titled "The Universe"? Does it describe a theory you developed? Is it fair to say that you do not read PLB regularly?

There are actually two more words after "The Universe", but I deleted them to keep the main finding of the paper a secret. It explains the evolution of the Universe in time and our observations of 1SA supernovas without dark energy, but I don't think I can say much more without being banned. I've recently read a lot of GR and Cosmology articles but I don't read PLB regularly. I know that it is more of a high energy particle physics journal, but it does cosmology too and my editor, Dodelson, is a cosmologist. The Elsevior matching algorythm sent me to PLB..

However the paper does also deal with GR on the particle level.

EDIT:
I'm not certain if it is allowed on this webcite, but I might be able to email it to you, if you promise not to share it.

 

[Choppy]

At what point do you think it would be appropriate for me to send another email to the editor?.

I'm don't deal with cosmology journals, but in general the peer-review process is pretty slow. It can take several weeks just to find someone willing to review the paper. After that you have to wait for the review. And remember that the reviewers have day jobs. Then the editor or associate editor has to read the reviews and make a decision on the article. Associate editors will also have day jobs. Median wait times for me have been in the two-three month ballpark. I've had papers that have taken 6 months to come back.

There is one article that was received on 12 May 2015 and published 19 May 2015. That doesn't seem fair.

That doesn't seem realistic in my experience. Was it a full scientific article or a technical note, or a letter to the editor? On occasion some types of articles can be fast-tracked. Examples might be where the article was requested, or if it was an erratum and therefore only subject to limited review. Otherwise sometimes the stars do line up and you get a quick turn around. But comparing your situation to the fastest time you can find is unrealistic.

Most scientists will have more than one project on the go. Once an article is submitted for review, you have to shift your focus and work on something else until the review comes back. You'll drive yourself crazy if you're just waiting.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So, here are the stats for PLB's Astrophysics and Cosmology for calendar 2015: N=27, mean=128 days median = 102 days, middle 50% within 60-169 days, longest = 325 days, and shortest = 31 days.

Given this, complaining that not having a 7 day turnaround being unfair doesn't seem to me to be reasonable. Neither is pestering the journal editor before even the shortest acceptance time has elapsed.

And yes, sometimes papers go through quickly. I had one accepted in 8 hours once. That was a very special case, where we were working closely with the journal editors leading up to that point.

 

[thedaybefore]

So, here are the stats for PLB's Astrophysics and Cosmology for calendar 2015: N=27, mean=128 days median = 102 days, middle 50% within 60-169 days, longest = 325 days, and shortest = 31 days.

Given this, complaining that not having a 7 day turnaround being unfair doesn't seem to me to be reasonable. Neither is pestering the journal editor before even the shortest acceptance time has elapsed.

And yes, sometimes papers go through quickly. I had one accepted in 8 hours once. That was a very special case, where we were working closely with the journal editors leading up to that point.

Thank you for your detailed well thought out response!

I don't want to complaign and I don't want to pester anyone. My two emails to the editor were only about a sentence or two long, so I don't hink they were too troublesome, but I will resist any urges to send any more. I think that once I see the status saying "out for review", I'll feel better. I think that the "rapid publication" statement in the journal description and the email I got that mentioned "sending the manuscript out for review" got my hopes up. However, my anxiety level has come back down to a relativly normal level and I will try to be patient.

 

[micromass]

but I deleted them to keep the main finding of the paper a secret.

if you promise not to share it.

You don't seem to understand scientific research. If you don't discuss your papers with knowledgeable others, then your paper is likely worthless. For example, if I did not share my papers with others, then they would never have been published because they were awful. It was the criticism of others that made the papers into something worth publishing.

Remember Wiles proving Fermat? You think he kept everything a secret and did not discuss with others? Wrong! He talked to many many many other people in the field about his results. Only then did he find it reasonable to still publish it. And there was still a mistake in it!

The entire thing of "people stealing your ideas" is mostly a fear by laymen. Actual scientists do not think that way.

 

[thedaybefore]

You don't seem to understand scientific research. If you don't discuss your papers with knowledgeable others, then your paper is likely worthless. For example, if I did not share my papers with others, then they would never have been published because they were awful. It was the criticism of others that made the papers into something worth publishing.

Remember Wiles proving Fermat? You think he kept everything a secret and did not discuss with others? Wrong! He talked to many many many other people in the field about his results. Only then did he find it reasonable to still publish it. And there was still a mistake in it!

The entire thing of "people stealing your ideas" is mostly a fear by laymen. Actual scientists do not think that way.

EDIT:

I'm not afraid of people stealing my idea. I've already submitted it, so my priority is clear. I just didn't want to spoil the surprise.

However, I suppose I can let the cat out of the bag. The actual title is "The Universe is Contracting".


I don't think I can give you any details without getting banned, but I think the title is descriptive.

 

[micromass]

I just didn't want to spoil the surprise.

Science is not a TV show where you put in a cliffhanger to make people excited. Science is about being honest, and giving people a very clear idea of what to expect.

 

[thedaybefore]

Science is not a TV show where you put in a cliffhanger to make people excited. Science is about being honest, and giving people a very clear idea of what to expect.

Essentially, what to expect is that the Universe is contracting and we change size (our volume contracts) at the same relative rate as the Universe, which would cause us to see the distances in the Universe as not changing if our rate of time was constant. However, when we contract, our rate of time also increases which causes us to perceive the Universe as expandiong since it takes longer for light to reach us from a distant star by our own measure. Further, the contraction of the Universe causes the objects in the Universe to increase in real relative velocity to us in much the same way that gas moleules acquire additional kinetic energy when the container the gas is in is contracted. The velocity affect is analyzed using the metric tensor, but the affect on massive objects in the Universe is the same as the affect caused by compressing a gas. Accordingly, the contracting Universe eliminates the need for dark energy, since what we call dark energy of an expanding Universe is really the normal action of a contracting Universe.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Oh dear. I don't expect this will review well. Indeed, if the editor is doing his job, it won't go out for review at all.

 

[thedaybefore]

Oh dear. I don't expect this will review well. Indeed, if the editor is doing his job, it won't go out for review at all.

The Editor is Scott Dodelson, who is the author of a cosmology textbook and an important figure at the University of Chicago Kavli Cosmolgy institute and at Argonne. If he thought my paper was crazy, he would have probably told me by now instead of asking me to offically upload the modified version. However, you could be right. and he may have read the cover letter which says that the Universe is contracting and that the paper unifies QM and GR, but still ignored the paper for a couple weeks even though he asked me to upoad the modified version.


Beleiving in a big bang, believing that there is some dark energy that comprise 3/4 of the Unverse but we don't know what it is, and beleiveing in 12 dimensional strings and beleiving that the Universe can expand around us without affecting us are all rational, but beleiving that we expand or contract along with the universe that we are an integral part of is somehow crazy? Hmm?

I prefer a universe without big bangs, no dark energy, and no 12 dimensional strings, but that is still consisgtent with GR and QM.

It is odd that I have a hard time beleiving in dark energy but most people, including most physicists, have a really hard time accepting that humans can change our size. Lev Okun said moire than 10 years ago in several publications that "the phenomenon known as the red shift of a photon is really the blue shift of atom" and explained how rest energy changes in a gravity well, but most physicsts still deny both things. I think it is a conceit type of thing where humans can't accept that the Universe can change them.

 

[micromass]

Well, this thread went exactly like I predicted. I'm happy my prediction skills are still up to par.

 

[thedaybefore]

Well, this thread went exactly like I predicted. I'm happy my prediction skills are still up to par.

You should probably go to Vegas and bet big.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The Editor is Scott Dodelson, who is the author of a cosmology textbook and an important figure at the University of Chicago Kavli Cosmolgy institute and at Argonne.

Fermilab, actually. But doesn't this mean that he's a busy man? Dealing with these kinds of papers is probably not high on his priority list.

 

[thedaybefore]

You might be right, but I would think that my cover letter claiming that the Universe is contracting and that I unified GR and QM, as well as my email containing the corrected version which said "you must read this paper because it will change your entire understanding of the Universe" would have piqued his interest. However, I don't know. I sent him an email last Tuesday an this Wednesday asking if he could give me any status info or other info, but he did not respond. I don't think that I can send him another email at least for several weeks. I guess that eventualy it will all resolve itself and I know that the resolution may not be what I would like. Despite what might appear as unfettered conficdence, I still have about a 20% beleif that I am crazy.

 

[micromass]

You might be right, but I would think that my cover letter claiming that the Universe is contracting and that I unified GR and QM, as well as my email containing the corrected version which said "you must read this paper because it will change your entire understanding of the Universe" would have piqued his interest.

If you actually do that, then I think he would have very different thoughts than you think, given that he probably receives this kind of thing every week.

 

[ZapperZ]

You might be right, but I would think that my cover letter claiming that the Universe is contracting and that I unified GR and QM, as well as my email containing the corrected version which said "you must read this paper because it will change your entire understanding of the Universe" would have piqued his interest.

On the contrary!

I get such e-mail regularly on my work address. Claiming that your work would "change your entire understanding of the Universe" usually causes a bunch of warning bells to go off. So if I were Scott and I get such an e-mail, I'd relegate it to my assistant and ask him/her to do a quick vetting of the submission.

Many of us, and many academic divisions, get these things so often, they are often ignored without any response. Warren Siegel even created a dedicated page for such people:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

And certainly, journal editors get this so often, I'm sure they have a standard procedure of handling such things.

Zz.

 

[Dale]

This thread is closed. In all likelihood this paper will not be published. Until it is, it is not suitable for this forum.