I sent them an article, and got a prompt response back from the managing editor saying the review time would be delayed due to an upcoming special issue, which I appreciated. Six months alter, I sent an inquiry, and was assured my article would be reviewed shortly. Eight months later, I sent another inquiry which was never answered. When I emailed them to withdraw the article, and asked whether it had ever been reviewed, they still never replied. I was not impressed by the total lack of professionalism.
As a former assistant editor of AHR I have to say that the quality of management varies. It is a small, boutique journal managed by PhD students with various levels of experience. Three of the five assistant editors that worked on the journal during my time had some editorial / layout experience.
Because AHR does one special issue and one open topic issue per year there is a bit of a backlog. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable to wait for over a year for a decision.
Here are my recommendations: 1. Stay in constant contact with the managing editor because he or she manages the peer review process. You must remember that these are doctoral students preparing for exams, writing dissertations, working on grant proposals, etc. so sometimes things fall through the cracks. I’m not justifying it but that is the reality. 2. Never submit anything during the summer. Even if you have an article ready to go, wait until September. Technically the assistant editorship runs from September to May, so you run the risk of your submission going unnoticed. 3. If more than 2-3 months pass, send a reminder email.
In spite of these shortcomings, I think the quality of scholarship in AHR is solid. Prof. William Luis puts in a lot of hard work once we get to the proofs stage. I value the time I worked there.
I sent them an article and it took seven months and five e-mails to get a response. The decision was based on the opinion of one reviewer. Besides the delay, it seems quite strange to have an article reviewed by one person. Very disappointing.
I sent them an article, and got a prompt response back from the managing editor saying the review time would be delayed due to an upcoming special issue, which I appreciated. Six months alter, I sent an inquiry, and was assured my article would be reviewed shortly. Eight months later, I sent another inquiry which was never answered. When I emailed them to withdraw the article, and asked whether it had ever been reviewed, they still never replied. I was not impressed by the total lack of professionalism.
As a former assistant editor of AHR I have to say that the quality of management varies. It is a small, boutique journal managed by PhD students with various levels of experience. Three of the five assistant editors that worked on the journal during my time had some editorial / layout experience.
Because AHR does one special issue and one open topic issue per year there is a bit of a backlog. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable to wait for over a year for a decision.
Here are my recommendations:
1. Stay in constant contact with the managing editor because he or she manages the peer review process. You must remember that these are doctoral students preparing for exams, writing dissertations, working on grant proposals, etc. so sometimes things fall through the cracks. I’m not justifying it but that is the reality.
2. Never submit anything during the summer. Even if you have an article ready to go, wait until September. Technically the assistant editorship runs from September to May, so you run the risk of your submission going unnoticed.
3. If more than 2-3 months pass, send a reminder email.
In spite of these shortcomings, I think the quality of scholarship in AHR is solid. Prof. William Luis puts in a lot of hard work once we get to the proofs stage. I value the time I worked there.
I sent them an article and it took seven months and five e-mails to get a response. The decision was based on the opinion of one reviewer. Besides the delay, it seems quite strange to have an article reviewed by one person. Very disappointing.