Diary of a submission withdrawal request
August 27th, 2020, by Guy Harris
Here is one author’s recent experience with a paper she submitted to a journal. The journal, which we will call JOXX, is published by one of the Top 2 science publishing companies. DMC edited the paper in April 2018, and the author (MI) submitted it soon thereafter.
In March 2019, 8 months after submission, the paper was updated to ‘under review’. MI requested that the review be expedited, but the journal did not respond.
In July, she decided to withdraw the paper and submit it to different journal with another publisher. She asked DMC to help request JOXX to expedite or cancel the submission.
Things did not go smoothly, however. Here follows the diary of that process.
July 29 2019:
DMC writes the following email for MI to send to the journal:
Dear editorial staff of JOXX,
I am writing to request that the status of the review of my paper (manuscript number JOXX-D-99-9999) be checked and if possible, for the review process to be hurried along.
It has been close to 5 months since the paper was first placed “Under Review” and more than 13 months since the initial submission — my coauthors and I think that this too long a time to wait for a response from the journal.
I would appreciate it if you could respond to my email and inform me of whether it is possible to speed up the review of this paper. If it is not, my coauthors and I would like to consider withdrawing our paper.
Sincerely,
MI
July 31 2019
The journal responds:
Dear Dr MI,
The editor has responded that most of the invited reviewers are declined to review the manuscript JOXX-D-99-9999 and he is in need of two additional names of potential reviewers to continue the process.
The editor has requested you to suggest any two reviewers with their e-mail address so the he could expedite the processing of your paper.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
SR
August 5 2019
MI is dissatisfied with this response, coming 13 months after submission and 5 months after the paper was added for review. She decides to withdraw the paper and submit to a different journal. DMC prepares the following message for her. We set a deadline of August 7 for JOXX to acknowledge withdrawal of the paper:
Dear Ms SR,
I was concerned to read your message concerning my submission, JOXX-D-99-9999, of July 31.
Please be reminded that it has been around 5 months since the paper was first placed “Under Review” and more than 13 months since the initial submission.
Your journal’s delay in responding to our submission is unacceptable. On behalf of my coauthors, I therefore withdraw this paper from review for publication in JOXX, and cancel our submission.
Please let me know by 18:00 JST August 7 if there is any impediment to our submission of this paper to another journal. If I do not hear from you by that time, I will consider that there is no impediment, and that we are free to submit the paper elsewhere.
Sincerely,
MI
The journal responded later that day, but completely ignored MI’s request to withdraw the paper:
Dear Dr MI,
The paper is currently with the editor for initial evaluation.
The editor will render a decision directly or will initiate the review process.
However, I have now contacted the editor to expedite the process.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
SR
August 7 2019
The journal responded again, for the second time ignoring MI’s request to withdraw:
Dear Dr MI,
The editor has responded that the invited reviewers have declined to review the manuscript JOXX-D-99-9999 and he is in need of two additional names of potential reviewers to continue the process.
The editor has requested you to suggest any two reviewers with their e-mail address so the he could expedite the processing of your paper.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
SR
August 8 2019
MI considered that the responses were inappropriate. As the journal raised no impediment to withdrawal, we advised her to send the following message the next day. The goal was to document withdrawal and obviate any possible claim of dual submission when the paper was submitted to another journal. To ensure this, we cc’ed the message to the journal editor, the journal’s production manager, and the head of the publishing company’s ethics group:
Dear Ms R,
As I noted in my withdrawal email of August 5, I have withdrawn our manuscript JOXX-D-99-9999 from consideration for publication in JOXX.
As you did not declare any impediment to withdrawal by 18:00 JST August 7, as I had requested if such existed, I consider that there is no impediment to withdrawal, and that we are accordingly free to submit the paper elsewhere.
Given the inappropriateness of your responses to my withdrawal notice, I have cc’ed this message to Dr A (JOXX editor); Ms B (JOXX production editor); and Ms C (Research Integrity Manager, [Publishing Company] Research Integrity Group), in order to avoid any future confusion.
Sincerely,
MI
Later that day, the journal at last acknowledged MI’s request to withdraw the paper:
Dear Dr MI,
I have already escalated your concern to the Editor[....]
However, I have now contacted the Editor for your withdrawal request and will get back to you shortly.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
SR
Note that the journal has still not accepted the withdrawal request. This ongoing misunderstanding by the journal – coming after 13 months since the paper was first submitted – was causing MI considerable stress, both personal and professional.
August 9, 2019
MI reminds JOXX that the paper is now withdrawn, and no longer subject to a withdrawal request. The people cc’ed above were again cc’ed on this message:
Dear Ms SR,
Your message of August 8 regarding JOXX-D-99-9999 again ignores my message of the 5th, and your failure to raise impediments to withdrawal by August 7.
As comprehension seems lacking, I will repeat: the paper is withdrawn, and is free for submission elsewhere.
This matter is now closed.
Sincerely,
MI
Finally, the Editor-in-charge responds to acknowledge withdrawal of the paper:
Dear Professor,
Your message was received and the paper will be withdrawn.
Cordially,
AB
Every author who has submitted a paper to the black box of peer review will sympathise with MI’s highly stressful, career-damaging experience. Like many journals today, the editor of JOXX (USA) is physically distant from the journal management (India), a separation which appears to have hampered communication.
The lesson of MI’s experience is that authors should not wait to contact laggard journals. Rather, authors should take an aggressive approach to ensure their papers are handled in a correct and timely manner. MI waited 13 months, and only then took forceful action; if she had not, she might still be waiting today.
