I don't submit to literary journals anymore; not because I don't love them. I do. I'm just too old to let my work hang in limbo for months or even a year with no communication whatsoever, only to find it's a no. So I have no skin in this game, but I will make a couple of suggestions:

I wish the staff responsible for reading MS would do a quick go-through to eliminate those manuscripts that don't stand a chance, and immediately send them back to the writer. You should know after the first couple of paragraphs whether or not they're candidates, so holding them for months seems the height of inefficiency.

Then separate the 'maybe's' from the 'good chances'. If you have a mess of 'good chances', more than you'll need, then the 'maybe's' are no longer 'maybe's'. Send out the rejections.

Then send the 'good chances' a note telling them they're still in the running.

All it takes is a short note and most writers will, in fact, hang on.

I realize I'm on the outside looking in, but as a writer I frankly find the wait times unconscionable--especially when there is no communication whatsoever. You're dealing with real human beings who obviously want you to pick them, but think of the fine manuscripts you might be missing because so many good writers just won't do it. They feel like fools for putting up with a system that treats them like commodities and not artists.

It's like being in a lottery with chances slim to none. Often they must pay to gamble and they rarely see a payoff. I'm frankly surprised that writers still put up with it.

So, yes, I understand the need for writers to submit simultaneously, and I'd challenge any journal that questions their actions.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but this system is ancient and needs to change with the times. Now that we have the speed and the efficiency of the internet there's no earthly reason for decisions on any manuscript to take that long.