Did all the editors go on vacation?

[paulasheri]

Am I alone or is anyone else having articles sitting, waiting for review for extended periods of time? I am beyond frustrated. I had 2 articles written for requested content last Tuesday, the request expired Sunday, and my articles are STILL waiting for review. Anyone else having this problem?

[moonlightvirgo]

I'm wondering also...maybe they're backlogged. My first two got such a quick response but these last ones have been waiting awhile. Lots of active writers, right?

[paulasheri]

They are still sitting. I don't think they plan to look at them ever. It's been since the 26th of April. The job has long expired. I'm frustrated beyond tears. I may be done with cc.

[jadedragon]

If you are a new writer her sometimes the editors take more time to review your work. Don't give up, they will get to you.

Compare to writing for print where you need to wait weeks and months to hear back, CC is lighting fast. In the mean time work up your next article ready to submit.

[moonlightvirgo]

I agree with jadedragon, I've waited a loooonnnnggg time for responses from publishers. Two of mine here at CC are still waiting and one later one just got a response. Maybe they also respond more quickly to ones that there are more requests for.

[paulasheri]

My first several articles were reviewed within 2 days. One was reviewed and sold within a couple of hours. The two that are still sitting were originally reviewed within a day of submission, but both needed corrections. I resubmitted them the same day and they are still sitting. Now 9 days.

[JStone]

The "latest content added" page hasn't changed for days, so I don't know if there is any reviewing being done at the moment. Surely that doesn't look good to customers. If the reviewing workload is too heavy, I don't understand why CC don't just employ more editors. Surely more editors = faster turnaround on content = happier writers + more content being written = more sales = more income for CC = more money for CC to spend on editors

[buckeyes09]

I'm with you guys - it's starting to get very, very annoying. Especially since I have resubmitted articles that have not been re-reviewed a week after they first reviewed them, a week after originally submitted them.

I would gladly take a 60% cut if that means I don't have to wait over a week for each review. It is in their economic interest to review as many as possible.

[happywriter]

Same here.

[JStone]

CC just reviewed my whole backlog of articles from the last week (about 15 of them) in the space of an hour...one was rejected so I made some corrections and resubmitted, and they re-reviewed that within 30 minutes. Very strange...they seem to disappear for a while and then come back and suddenly do a whole load of reviewing overnight!

I agree with buckeyes....I would be happy for CC to take a bigger cut of 40% if it meant we could have a faster turnaround on getting articles reviewed.

[buckeyes09]

Good for getting your articles reviewed, although I would rather have them reviewed first-in, first-out instead of waiting for a week. Especially with resubmissions.

[J. A. Young]

Uh, 35% percent is still preferable to me. No rate hikes please

[CRDonovan]

A suggestion for the writers side of things: submit carefully, one at a time. If you are submitting rafts of articles, getting some sent back, then quickly redoing and resubmitting those... this does not contribute to the quick processing of work. It'd be nice if the editors only had to review each article one time.

[buckeyes09]

Uh, 35% percent is still preferable to me. No rate hikes please

Well, the rate hike would be contingent upon reviewing within the allotted timeframe, or it would go back to 35%. Yes, I'm making up my own rules as I go along.

A suggestion for the writers side of things: submit carefully, one at a time. If you are submitting rafts of articles, getting some sent back, then quickly redoing and resubmitting those... this does not contribute to the quick processing of work. It'd be nice if the editors only had to review each article one time.

Very good advice. Who knows what the acceptance rate is. I read Ezine was an atrocious 40-some percent before the Google slap. No doubt it's in our interest to proofread well. However, I still want faster review times.

[JStone]

A suggestion for the writers side of things: submit carefully, one at a time. If you are submitting rafts of articles, getting some sent back, then quickly redoing and resubmitting those... this does not contribute to the quick processing of work. It'd be nice if the editors only had to review each article one time.

Articles can only be submitted one at a time. I agree that everyone should be proofreading carefully before submitting, but unfortunately most of us will miss the odd punctuation or grammar mistake occasionally. I'm not sure that writers can be blamed for lengthy turnaround times on article reviews.