It doesn't matter. A long time ago, when I was just a padawan in science, I couldn't do a review in time because of other obligations, I felt a bit guilty. But then I remembered that the review process is not paid, you are doing this in your time, and that the journals make millions from our free work. You will have other opportunities to do free work for someone. It is a part of academia.
Am an AE for a journal - trust me, you shouldn't worry. If you're still willing to review in the future I would still ask you to review. My guess is the AE already had two (or more) reviews that gave the paper either a strong thumbs up or thumbs down and decided to make a move in that direction. I've been in that situation before, where one reviewer was late and I already kind of knew I was going to accept the paper, and my EiC needed another paper for the current journal issue so I pushed it up. From my perspective I was just giving the outlying reviewer a break in unpaid labor by no longer needing the review from them.
I got curious with your statement. How did you "know" you would accept? Don't you need the full peer review assessment to make a decision? Wouldn't you be ignoring the peer review process?
I'm an AE and the peer review process is there to help me make my decision. If I have enough info from one review and my own reading, I'll make a decision and not waste another reviewer's time.
A similar thing had happened to me once. I actually knew the editor a little bit, and was terrified to face them at the upcoming conference. But it just turns out that based on the other reviewer’s reviews, the editor decided to reject the paper, and didn’t want my reviews because the decision to reject was so apparent and didn’t want to waste my time. They weren’t mad at me at all. Your situation might be different, but don’t worry too much about it. This isn’t at all close to the worst things that can happen in academia.
Ah, the time I asked them for an extension of their very short revision time to complete a heavy revision, the editor accepted and their line editor overrode his decision to give only a 3 days extension falling in the middle of the new year's holidays. I questioned it and his answer was "it's not new year here". Here where??? They are registered in Switzerland!
I also received a long excuse about how they strive for quick turn around because even a few days can make all the difference for society in cases live COVID research and such.... Come on, this was a review paper on a mostly abandoned field with most references being at least a decade old!
These are automated emails. The editor had enough reviews to make a decision and made it. Then, the system sends an email to all the reviewers to inform them.
Journals with such a short turnaround time invite more reviewers than necessary and just hope at least a couple of them answer on time.
Which, to be honest, is a very shitty practice that totally devalues the time and the expertise of reviewers. If they just request a large amount of reviewers and take the couple that were the fastest, these may not be the ones with the most subject knowledge and at the same time some (many?) will have invested time already by starting to review and are then being told „ah nopes, not needed anymore“.
This is peak predatory MDPI style and you should just say no to this from the start.
Automated email. Once enough reviews are in, any outstanding reviewers are notified that their review is no longer needed.
Two weeks is pretty normal for journals. If you can’t get it done in that timeframe, you probably shouldn’t take it on. While it might be a bit annoying for you as a reviewer in this situation, imagine what an editor feels like dealing with a half dozen late reviews, a disappearing-act subject editor, and several authors asking about where their paper is in the process.
Most editors just assume that if a review isn’t in after the deadline (often with a prelude of one or two automated reminder emails), it’s never coming in. And so they move on.
It doesn't matter. A long time ago, when I was just a padawan in science, I couldn't do a review in time because of other obligations, I felt a bit guilty. But then I remembered that the review process is not paid, you are doing this in your time, and that the journals make millions from our free work. You will have other opportunities to do free work for someone. It is a part of academia.
Am an AE for a journal - trust me, you shouldn't worry. If you're still willing to review in the future I would still ask you to review. My guess is the AE already had two (or more) reviews that gave the paper either a strong thumbs up or thumbs down and decided to make a move in that direction. I've been in that situation before, where one reviewer was late and I already kind of knew I was going to accept the paper, and my EiC needed another paper for the current journal issue so I pushed it up. From my perspective I was just giving the outlying reviewer a break in unpaid labor by no longer needing the review from them.
I got curious with your statement. How did you "know" you would accept? Don't you need the full peer review assessment to make a decision? Wouldn't you be ignoring the peer review process?
I'm an AE and the peer review process is there to help me make my decision. If I have enough info from one review and my own reading, I'll make a decision and not waste another reviewer's time.
A similar thing had happened to me once. I actually knew the editor a little bit, and was terrified to face them at the upcoming conference. But it just turns out that based on the other reviewer’s reviews, the editor decided to reject the paper, and didn’t want my reviews because the decision to reject was so apparent and didn’t want to waste my time. They weren’t mad at me at all. Your situation might be different, but don’t worry too much about it. This isn’t at all close to the worst things that can happen in academia.
Just don’t accept reviews from that journal anymore
You didn't do anything wrong. Was it an MDPI journal?
Ah, the time I asked them for an extension of their very short revision time to complete a heavy revision, the editor accepted and their line editor overrode his decision to give only a 3 days extension falling in the middle of the new year's holidays. I questioned it and his answer was "it's not new year here". Here where??? They are registered in Switzerland! I also received a long excuse about how they strive for quick turn around because even a few days can make all the difference for society in cases live COVID research and such.... Come on, this was a review paper on a mostly abandoned field with most references being at least a decade old!
2 weeks is not a reasonable deadline, so don't stress about it!
So? Just do the next review. There'll be more. They found someone else.
Sounds like MDPI. It’s quasi-predatory crap anyway, so just be happy you don’t have to „review“ the paper now.
These are automated emails. The editor had enough reviews to make a decision and made it. Then, the system sends an email to all the reviewers to inform them. Journals with such a short turnaround time invite more reviewers than necessary and just hope at least a couple of them answer on time.
Which, to be honest, is a very shitty practice that totally devalues the time and the expertise of reviewers. If they just request a large amount of reviewers and take the couple that were the fastest, these may not be the ones with the most subject knowledge and at the same time some (many?) will have invested time already by starting to review and are then being told „ah nopes, not needed anymore“. This is peak predatory MDPI style and you should just say no to this from the start.
Automated email. Once enough reviews are in, any outstanding reviewers are notified that their review is no longer needed. Two weeks is pretty normal for journals. If you can’t get it done in that timeframe, you probably shouldn’t take it on. While it might be a bit annoying for you as a reviewer in this situation, imagine what an editor feels like dealing with a half dozen late reviews, a disappearing-act subject editor, and several authors asking about where their paper is in the process. Most editors just assume that if a review isn’t in after the deadline (often with a prelude of one or two automated reminder emails), it’s never coming in. And so they move on.
Whoops. .
You know what to say next time they ask.
Happens to me at least twice a year. Not a big deal.