Timeliness: The author's vested right but the editor's last concern

Practiced in various journals, peer reviewing is undoubtedly the core of science (as opposed to non-science) production in all disciplines, particularly in medical sciences due to their direct and immediate effect on human health. Publication provides the chance for bits of knowledge to get integrated into the body of global knowledge and to share it with other researchers (1). This involves the reviewing of a submitted manuscripts, which varies from journal to journal; however, the most common steps appear to be the notice of receipt to the author, primary appraisal by the editor-in-chief or the editorial team, extending the early impressions to the corresponding author, re-submission of the manuscript by the author, sending out the manuscript to external reviewers or its immediate rejection, receiving the reviewer’s comments, finalizing the comments, rejection or sending the comments to the author for revising the manuscript, re-submission of the revised version, and the final decision to accept to reject it. What comes to be important at this stage is how the journal interacts with the corresponding author