The dog ate my paper

Eons ago when I was a lowly graduate student, I buffed up a seminar paper and submitted it to an academic journal. Two years later, the editor replied with a request that I revise and resubmit, but by that time I had moved on to other projects--and besides, why would I want to do business with a journal that takes two years to reply to a submission?

Fast-forward a few years and I'm a professor interviewing candidates for a position in our department. One of the candidates notes my research interests and asks why I haven't been published in the aforementioned journal, which he serves as an editorial assistant. I tell him about my experience. He admits that there had been some problems but that the submission process has been streamlined, and he encourages me to submit again.

So I submit a new article, which is accepted immediately--but does not appear in print for two years.

Anyone involved in academic publishing can tell stories like these and others even more frustrating. Too often, submitting an article to an academic journal feels like dropping one's precious creations into a black hole. I had hoped that the proliferation of online submission procedures would alleviate this problem: I don't have to make multiple copies and then worry about whether they've been lost in transit, and it's reassuring to be able to check the status of a submission online. But when it doesn't work, an online submission system is just a more sophisticated black hole.

Case in point: about a year ago I submitted an article to a reputable academic journal through their online submission system. Within three months, I received a reply: revise and resubmit. I revised. I resubmitted before the deadline. I received an e-mail confirming that my submission had been received. I checked the status of my submission a few times over the next couple of months, but then I didn't think about it for a while. (I was distracted. You know, chemotherapy and all that.)

Eventually it occurred to me that five months is a long time to wait for a decision on a resubmitted article, so I went online to check the status. The online submission system slammed the door on my fingers: wouldn't recognize my user name or password; wouldn't send me an e-mail reminding me of my user name or password; wouldn't respond to any requests for help. After exhausting all the electronic options available, I e-mailed the managing editor. "Your dog of a computer ate my paper" is what I wanted to say, but instead I was suitably polite and deferential and non-demanding. All I wanted was some reassurance that someone was aware of the problem and seeking a solution.

What kind of reply do you think I received?

None.

Zip. Nil. Nada. Not a word for a solid month.

I realize that everyone is busy this time of year, but please: aren't academic journals in the business of communicating? Why are so many of them so bad at this simple skill?

And how am I supposed to communicate with a black hole that won't stay still?