Featuring an overview of our latest issue, reflections by Christine Beckman and András Tilcsik on the value of cultivating articles, and a poll for choosing a future cover!
Chris & András, do I read the numbers correctly? Of the roughly 2500 papers submitted in the past 4 years, 425 received an R&R request and ultimately, 125 of the 2500 submissions were published. By my calculations, that means that whereas only 5% of all submissions were published, 29% of those invited to revise were published. Message to authors: getting through to the R&R stage is critical. Make sure your initial submission has been seen by as many eyes as possible, that you've work-shopped the paper at conferences & seminars, and that you've taken seriously all the feedback you've received.
Howard, the calculations are a little tricky because many of the revision decisions made in the last 4 plus years have not completed the review cycle (e.g., they have not been resubmitted, they are under review, they received another revision opportunity). So we are comparing somewhat different papers here (those still in process and those published through a process that started earlier). But given the rates are pretty comparable over time, the overall message is exactly as you suggest! That first decision is critical - and make sure you've gotten as much feedback as possible before submitting.
Chris & András, do I read the numbers correctly? Of the roughly 2500 papers submitted in the past 4 years, 425 received an R&R request and ultimately, 125 of the 2500 submissions were published. By my calculations, that means that whereas only 5% of all submissions were published, 29% of those invited to revise were published. Message to authors: getting through to the R&R stage is critical. Make sure your initial submission has been seen by as many eyes as possible, that you've work-shopped the paper at conferences & seminars, and that you've taken seriously all the feedback you've received.
Howard, the calculations are a little tricky because many of the revision decisions made in the last 4 plus years have not completed the review cycle (e.g., they have not been resubmitted, they are under review, they received another revision opportunity). So we are comparing somewhat different papers here (those still in process and those published through a process that started earlier). But given the rates are pretty comparable over time, the overall message is exactly as you suggest! That first decision is critical - and make sure you've gotten as much feedback as possible before submitting.
Oh wow! Good observations and I am taking notes of this :D