Footnotes article on "manuscript review strategies"

[silvestra]

In the recent issue of Footnotes, the "ad hoc committee to investigate review times in journals" published their manuscript review strategies.  I find the whole thing kind of dispiriting.  It seems to me we are at a point where 5-month, 6-month review times are becoming the norm.  And ASA's response is to publish tips to scholars on how to get their reviews done sooner??  ASA might as well as published this message: "Don't look to us to fix this mess."  

Don't get me wrong, I don't know the solution, but I am extremely doubtful that "how-to" tips in Footnotes is going to do the trick.

[lisa]

Yeah, I thought the same. Completely useless. The idea to published editor delay times is better though. But they should be more assertive. I recently looked at the annual report from the American Political Science Review. The whole thing was about getting faster review times with exact data on what takes time. Their were pretty successful in reducing the editor delay (e.g. 20 to 3 days until reviewers are assigned etc).