IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Proc. Royal Society B.

colemanr at garnet.berkeley.edu colemanr at garnet.berkeley.edu
Fri Oct 8 13:58:36 EST 1993

In article <93281.111952FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA>,
 <FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA> wrote:
...lots of stuff deleted...
>    No longer wishing to continue bashing my head against a brick wall, I
>decided to resubmit elsewhere, but to my dismay realized that the original
>figures would need to be reproduced again at considerable expense because the
>originals would not be back for another month or more, depending on the
>efficiency of nautical delivery.
>    SO. What went wrong?

Just my two cents worth, but I have never sent the actual original figures
when I submit a paper.  I always send really good photocopies or pmt prints
and I've never had a complaint.  (Note that my papers never include 
photographs, which may be more of a problem, but rather just the typical
line art graphics).  I guess I always figured that the odds of the postal
system running them over with a truck were just too great to risk it.

>    Clearly there was some sort of mix-up in the Editorial Office. I suspect,
>the problem is that the secretariat of P.R.Soc. B. is in London, whereas the
>Editor is located elsewhere.

Possibly, but <please take this in the spirit intended> did you REALLY 
ADDRESS EACH AND EVERY CONCERN of the original reviewers?  If not, and I was
one of the reviewers (which I wasn't!), I would refuse to look at it again.

>There is also an undue pressure for economy
>regarding postal charges and insufficient sensitivity to the desire of an
>author to get a work published expeditiously. 

I can understand journals not sending stuff by courier or even airmail. With
the volume of manuscripts they have to deal with, the costs can be outrageous.
I don't like waiting, but I can understand it. 

>Finally, if the redating of
>revised papers is a general practice, then readers are given a false impresion
>of the average time from  receipt to publication. Most other journals, place
>the dates of initial receipt and of the final receipt of the revised version n
>the published paper.
>                      Sincerely,  Don Forsdyke
>                                  Discussion Leader. Bionet.Journals.Note.

I guess the question here is whether this is a revision, or actually a new 
submission.  If the journal is treating it like a new submission, ie. wipe the 
slates clean, ignore the previous reviewers, then redating it seems correct t
to me.  

-- Ron Coleman

More information about the Jrnlnote mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net