How can i improve the review process of my submitted scientific article

". While interesting and important, it covers a broad area without going sufficiently deep to meet the theory expectations …"

Last February I submitted a research paper: the sum result of 18 months of experimental work during a technology transformation process at a startup enterprise. The reviews comments were distilled so much, to a point only mentioning the following on the revision/acceptance email:

". While interesting and important, it covers a broad area without going sufficiently deep to meet the theory expectations of …" this journal.

It's been 3 months (the email makes reference to it as well). Is the time I cannot afford to wait, in 2009 and certainly not in 2021. It's simply not feasible. This article is a result of what happened next when I publish this concern on The reader can view the original question here.

As in everything in life, the first step is to let know, and in this particular case, any Journal of interest, what are the difficulties, obstacles, delays, ... an author finds when starting a submission and also when going through all the tedious and too many times the slow process of publishing. If the editorial staff is unaware of such bad experiences, is more difficult to improve the submission platforms.

Until recently the only option available has been a private contact form or a private feedback form. In 2021 that is now clear to be too slow too, and with its own shortcomings. It can be found elsewhere, on Youtube, Reddit, Twitter, social networks in general research students and even researchers, speaking by themselves about their (or someone close) personal experience. And the main evident conclusion is: the submission processes (in this particular case) need to move (fast) to a transparent and clear environment, factual. all characteristics of any scientific method to begin with.

What can be done to improve the review process of your submitted scientific article?

As I stated on the problem(question) above,

  • it's been 3 months. Is the time I cannot afford to wait, in 2009 and certainly not in 2021. It's simply not feasible.

  • Plus all the mistrusts it raises, when dealing with innovative experimental works, with the proven application, as is stated and can be read, on the submitted paper were is mentioned "MVP". Downloadable to be tested by the reviewers themselves.

  • Plus, nowadays I don't need to wait. There are Scientific Journals online, that can deliver the review process in 2 Weeks.

More importantly,

  • I found, in general, reviewers' comments to be too short (a bullet list of comments or not even that), and for that, I can simply manage someplace else.

My view of what is needed in 2021 to improve the review process is as follows:

Reviews need to have a full report attached, with precise indication where, in the document, the reviewer(s) found something to be reviewed with an adequate justification of his/her findings (In all similar to what is being to when reviewing an IP document), that is to say, usage of automated tools for analyzing submitted documents (detection of plagiarism for instance and many others) all provide some kind of report analysis and that is helpful information for the authors too, not just to reviewers. Therefore, is important to facilitate and include all that info in the review report back to the authors. Plus it assists in improving immensely quality of scientific literature production when providing quality feedback like that. Immense value. A win-win for all.

Also, the obvious one, stated at the beginning, the review time needs to be shorter, much shorter. And that is not enough: the Sci. Journal webpage, needs to have listed, from the start, and publicly accessible

  • my submission title

  • the abstract

  • Authors

  • and submission date.

on click, the possibility to open a new page, where is shown the status and progress in a timeline with all details and comments throughout all the review process: Where currently is, what is waiting for, remarks being made on, for instance, a delay, ... When authenticated, the author gains access, on the same page, to more info about the review stages and progress including the final review report.

All, and more, in line with the latest guidelines for Open Data and Transparency in Science, found for instance on The European Commission website for open data and explainability of artificial intelligence. Towards science with more credibility and reputation among young researchers and the public in general.

An insightful Friday to all.

Until next time, don’t forget to share, and if possible, subscribe for fairness1 of work and a fairer economy, or instead buy me a coffee and promote at the same time open source writing.

Don’t forget to join my Official Facebook page or Connect to my Official Twitter Account @AeonLabsS. For small POSTS and Comments about views happening during my day at work. On the spot and unfiltered.


this article took approx. 2h to produce. And a small handful of gray hair! only basic, semi-automated, revisions were made to the text.