The academic publishing industry is facing renewed questions over editorial efficiency, peer-review delays and the treatment of researchers following an experience in which a scholar was rejected by a journal and invited to review a similar paper within 24 hours.
The incident, shared by Associate Professor Dr Rahaf Ajaj, a Chartered Scientist and environmental health expert, has highlighted concerns about inconsistencies in academic journal workflows and delays that can prevent research from reaching publication.
According to an account by Feisal Mohammed, Ajaj submitted a manuscript to a journal but received a desk rejection within 24 hours, without the paper proceeding to external peer review.
The following morning, however, the same journal invited her to serve as a peer reviewer for a paper described as strikingly similar to the manuscript it had rejected.
The contrasting decisions raised questions about how journals assess authors’ expertise during editorial screening while simultaneously seeking their services as subject-matter experts.
The experience also drew attention to the time researchers can lose while waiting for editorial decisions, particularly when journals give prospective reviewers extended periods to respond to invitations.
Three Weeks to Accept or Decline Review Invitation
A major concern highlighted in the account was that the review invitation gave the prospective reviewer 21 days merely to accept or decline.
Such timelines, when repeated across several potential reviewers, can create significant bottlenecks in the publication process.
If one reviewer takes the full 21 days to decline an invitation, an editor may need to identify another expert and wait for that person’s response before making further progress.
Repeated delays can leave authors waiting for months before their manuscripts enter peer review, even when no substantive assessment of their research has begun.
The problem raises concerns about the efficiency of editorial management, particularly as researchers face pressure to publish findings, secure research funding and advance their academic careers.
Questions Over Editorial Consistency
The incident has prompted three broader questions about the operation of academic journals.
The first concerns the relationship between editorial screening and reviewer selection. If a journal considers a researcher qualified to assess a similar manuscript, questions arise about how it evaluates the researcher’s own submission and whether its editorial decisions adequately recognise relevant expertise.
However, a desk rejection and a peer-review invitation are not necessarily contradictory. Editors may reject a manuscript because it falls outside a journal’s scope, lacks sufficient novelty or does not meet its publication criteria, while still recognising the author’s expertise in a particular subject.
The second issue concerns response deadlines. Critics argue that allowing prospective reviewers up to three weeks to accept or decline an invitation can unnecessarily delay the process, particularly when journals do not promptly follow up or approach alternative reviewers.
The third question is accountability. Researchers and journal publishers face growing pressure to make editorial processes more transparent, improve communication and reduce avoidable delays.
Calls for Reform in Academic Publishing
The experience has renewed calls for academic publishers to reconsider how they manage submissions, recruit reviewers and communicate with authors.
Potential improvements include shorter response windows for reviewer invitations, automated follow-ups, faster identification of alternative reviewers and clearer updates for authors whose manuscripts remain under consideration.
Greater coordination between editorial screening and reviewer selection could also help journals use researchers’ expertise more effectively, although editorial decisions must continue to be based on the quality, originality and suitability of submitted work.
Academic publishing relies on peer review to maintain research quality and credibility. However, prolonged administrative delays can frustrate researchers and slow the dissemination of potentially valuable findings.
The central challenge is to preserve rigorous evaluation while ensuring that the system operates efficiently and treats the time and work of authors, editors and reviewers with appropriate consideration.
As the debate continues, researchers are being encouraged to share their experiences with peer-review delays and discuss how academic publishing can become more responsive, transparent and efficient.
