Under review after revision. “Denied” or “rejected” is the negative status.

Under review after revision 5 months since the first submission, I got a major revision but it made me happy as all the comments were positive mainly on the restructuring of some words, adding references, etc. A respectable colleague of mine (and excellent scientist and author) received two fresh reviews after major revision. request minor or major revisions, or reject the paper due to unresolvable concerns. After a while, I received a message stating that the revisions I made have been accepted by the reviewers and I was only being asked to proofread the manuscript again to correct potential mistakes. I think awaiting reviewers' scores after revision means that your response to the queries raise is under review to ensure that you have actually responded accordingly and adequately Cite Get help I submitted a revised paper. The system in most Transactions lets you change the minimum number of reviews so that the status is "Under Review" rather than "with Associate Editor". After 4 months, my paper status was changed to "Required reviews completed", but after two weeks it was changed to "Under review" again. some journals can move the status when one review has been submitted, while others might ask for 2 or 3 or more. Around 12 days after submission of my revised manuscript, the Editor sent me an email that the manuscript will be handled by the associate editor, but the status was still "With Editor". after that, the status change to with editor and thereafter a decision My 1-st round revised paper return back to Under review after a 6 days status of Required review complete. The article took 5 months and I got decision with minor revision. Some people do not agree to, in that case, editors have to assign to a I have a separate section for under review papers where I list the journal and then either "under review" if I havent hears back, "under revision for invited resubmission" if I'm still working on revising, or "under review for invited resubmission" if I sent the revisions back. Therefore, I may suggest experts of the field to help the process, if you are still seeking reviewers. The only concern I would have is making sure it doesn't look like Especially the status 'Under review' encompasses many steps; while it may appear your manuscript is not progressing through the editorial process, a lot of activities may be happening during this part of the review process. Previous reviewers can be found by choosing ‘Select from Previous Reviewers’. I dont know why the revised Sometimes, a reviewer may pull out after being assigned, for reasons of a lack of time, mismatch (with their subject area), or conflict of interest. If you're seeing 'under review', it's because the paper has been sent to reviewers. Nevertheless, the aim of the Hello all, I have an article under review after a major revision with a journal. etc. Edelmann Thank you very much, I have three published paper in IEEE Access and 4th is under review after minor revision. If the ‘Reviewer Invited’ status preceded, it means that at least one reviewer has agreed to review the paper. Nonetheless, the parties are not After only 2 days it was sent out for a review. Since it is passed [duration] months after the expected response time, I would like to ask the status of my paper, which is currently under review. Does this indicate rejection? What does the status 'under I recently received a minor revision decision in the first round of review from a top journal with a strict review process. I completed and uploaded the revised anuscript, but the status is showing "under review" for a The paper is still in Under Review status. Hello everybody. (same day)-->under review-----(after 16 days)-->decision in So, why the sudden shift from 'under review' to 'reviewers assigned'? This change typically occurs when one of the original reviewers declines to review your manuscript, after accepting the invitation. " What does this mean? Under review ; This manuscript status indicates that a paper has been pre-checked and is now being peer-reviewed. I received a minor revision with two comments. I just waited up to Jan. The change in status from 'Under review' to 'Pending recommendation' implies that the peer review of your paper is complete and the Associate Editor or Editor-in-Chief will check the reviews and give his/her recommendation on acceptance, rejection, or further revision. After the submission of the second revision, the status was Under Review for 20 days. Now, the manuscript is 'Under Review'. The manuscript had the With Editor status for about 4 months. But when I submitted the revised article since day 2 it's status is "editor assignment pending" for almost 2 weeks. As you can guess from the topic question, i had submitted my manuscript and i got major revisions from one reviewer (only one is assigned). Both reviewers asked me to lengthen the introduction part and rewrite a convincing conclusion according to my research. I think that under consideration may significate under review through several time steps according to the revision process. This, in my opinion, is an indication that the status "Under review" refers to an internal review, not to the external peer review. If you do not think you will be able to return a revised manuscript in the allotted time tell the editor immediately. For grad school applications, this should be totally For the first week of submission, the status was "with editor" and then it changed to under review for one week, then reviewers asigned for the next two days then again changed to under review for About two years ago, I have submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal. September 15: I received a major revision decision. The paper is still in Under Review status Fortunately, the editor replied with "Your paper has been partially reviewed and we are waiting for remaining reviewers' response. Now, again it For a minor revision, the editor may decide to send the revised manuscript to the peer reviewer for a final check or review the manuscript themselves if the changes were indeed minor. But that was after it went from editorial board -> editor -> peer review -> revision, etc. What does it mean? The status says under review. Two days ago I know that journals approach the second round review for a revise-and-resubmit paper differently. He did say this after that 10 months!: you are right with your criticism. When revising your manuscript and responding to peer review comments After making corrections I have submitted the revised manuscript around 1. However, two days later, the status changed to ‘Under Review. From your query, it seems reviewers have been assigned for your manuscript. You should have I have submitted my paper to one of the springer journal. Then I revised and sent it back. The re-reviews and probably final recommendations would have come in from the reviewers sometime this month. Even revised papers may get rejected, so being in revision is no guarantee to get the paper published. My question is how long the revision will take? I submitted my paper to the journal Expert Systems With Applications. Did anyone encounter the same . As a result of this, you may receive a further round of Hi, I got an an article in a journal recently accepted with minor revisions. After that, it changed to Editor Assigned, and has been the same since January 17. Under Review. After 50 days of the peer review process, the response was “major revision has been requested” and that the new version was required within one month. After 1. In the 2nd revision, I could not understand the editorial manager paper status meaning. I submitted my manuscript to an Elsevier journal in January 2020. What actually happens with the manuscript depends on the editor and editorial policy. ' However, after 15 days, it again changed to 'Reviewers Assigned. Hello! I submitted my manuscript to an Elsevier journal 6 months ago. The editor asked us to resubmit the manuscript. This depends on how good those reviews are. After 14 days, I received the decision [communication] that both the reviewers agreed that I had addressed their questions and that the paper could be published. The reviewers all indicated that the paper would make a positive contrition to the field in the first round of review and asked me to make a major revision. under review; submitted to and do not stress that there is already a revision going on. Review enables an individual to ensure that his right is not violated by any act, any law made by the government or by After submission, I got a major revision decision from two reviewers. After review you may get two options major or minor revision. I submitted my revised manuscript to the journal after incorporating the reviewer's comments. This senior editor reviews the manuscript against our publication criteria and determines whether to reject or send it on to an Associate Editor for further review. Power of superintendence is both judicial and administrative. This status also applies to second review rounds (revised version reviews). Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. (2) Power of revision is only judicial and not administrative. After re-submission, the status changed from "under review" to "decision in process". 2016". If they're convincing enough then she might decide. I submitted a paper to a journal on May 24th, and upto July 24th it was "With editor. After passing the initial check, it stayed with the "Reviewers Assigned" status until 12 Oct and went Under Review on 13 Oct. This is usually journal-dependent, e. August 12: The status changed to Under Review. Now, again it In another example, I would complain if my paper is still not under review after one month, but it’s fine if it is under review at that time. So we sent query to the editor. Manuscripts move from "Under review" to "Required Reviews Complete" when all the necessary reviews to make a decision have arrived. In fact, I have submitted it on the 21st November 2019. Thanks to Elsevier tracker I saw that 3 reviewers accepted an invitation and subsequently all 3 submitted their reviews (this journal usually requires 2 or 3 reviews). ' Is 8 days a long time to provide a final decision especially since the reviewers' responses were rather quick? Thank you for your answer. While the reviewers had explicitly mentioned that there were minor issues, with about four issues a piece, the editor had requested a major revision. After major revision we have submitted the manuscript back and it went to with editor to under review after one day and to required reviews completed after 2 weeks and then again to under review after 1 day. Sometimes, new reviewers are assigned. You cannot be sure in which journal your article will be published nor if after revision it will remain with the I have a paper that was under review with one of Wiley's journals. It was "Under review" until October 28th. Now I think that it was worth it. 4. There are two main statuses that come after “under review. Mainly, it was only one table which needed amendments. In such instances, the editor seeks an alternative reviewer to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. Also in most cases, the AE will receive an e-mail to notify him that the minimum number of reviews has been received and he must submit a decision within a couple of days / week. After making revisions according to the reviewers' comments, I submitted the revised manuscript a few days ago. ” One is good; the other is bad. They’ll probably inform you on Monday, best of luck Typically, when a manuscript has been "under review" for more than 7 months in a journal, it means that the review process is taking longer than expected. Insecure or too busy editors are also not helping. It is all because one of the reviewers out of 7. It is usual for a paper to go through at least two author revisions before acceptance. In general, if such scenario happens when should one expect a decision? I have submitted my manuscript to a Springer journal. One-and-a-half months after submitting the revised version, the status changed to Required Reviews Completed and has remained so for more than three weeks. there were two reviewers, reviewer#1 said `The authors have made all the modifications indicated. How can I add this new article citation to the first manuscript during the period under review? If the first manuscript was accepted can I add this citation at the page proof stage? Thank you for your time and attention. I suppose that in most cases of minor revision, the revised manuscript will only be reviewed by the ADM or associate editor. After one week, the status changed to 'Reviewers Assigned,' and it remained so for one day. Perhaps if just one reviewer recommends a "major revision" while the other(s) ask for just "minor revision", the editor might conclude that a second round of reviews isn't all that Hi. I submitted the revised version on October 31st. “Denied” or “rejected” is the negative status. However, status descriptions vary across journals, and some journals also use the status "under review" to refer to the internal review. It’s only when the status changes to ‘Under Review,’ as you have rightly understood, that the actual review begins. For instance, should I add them in my CV as under-review papers and mention the conferences to which I submitted? Then, should I also include the pre-prints in my postdoc Based on other questions on the site it seems that listing a paper under revision in the CV is not always appropriate, but that as a student in my situation it should be okay. However, this change should not be cause for Based on the nature and extent of revisions, he/she might consider sending it out for another round of review or go through it himself/herself and make a final decision. I had submitted a review article in one of the springer journals one year ago and the status form 11 months was "Reviewers assigned" but the date was changing every 10-12 daysone week ago sent However, it is still under “Revised version review” after resubmitting the manuscript for the third time. For the first week of submission, the status was "with editor" and then it changed to under review for one week, then This is a follow-up question on "Why call it a "major" revision if the suggested changes are seemingly minor?" I have submitted the revision two weeks ago and it's still showing as "under review. Most people I've been seeing talk about their application status says that theirs Stage 3: Peer review. This is an approach that helps ensure that you respond to everything. ' I just submitted a revised paper to ScholarOne (major revision). Any article submitted to any journal goes under review if found suitable and within the scope of that journal. When you submit a research manuscript for peer review, the journal may report the status of the review as “in review” or “under review”. I submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal using Editorial Manager on February 27, 2020. July 1: I made the initial submission. What I have heard was that minor revision does not require another round of revision in most Hello all, I have an article under review after a major revision with a journal. . Initially the status was "awaiting admin checklist", and then changed to "under review". " After more than a year of passing through review > major review > review > minor revision > review, the status has been ‘Awaiting EIC decision’ for the past 20 days. They have given a major revision decision twice. Now the review status changed to "Awaiting RE Decision" . The status (as usual) changed directly to "With editor" on the system and after 3 Sr. The status of my manuscript is currently "under review" after a minor revision and I had resubmitted the revision. It was sent out to one reviewer only and the editor gave a moderate revision decision. However, two months after submitting the revisions, the status of the submission is still "Editor Assigned". Identifying previous reviewers in Editorial Manager. g. I edited my manuscript as they suggested and submitted the revised version. After a month, I received comments from three reviewers requesting minor revisions. After that, it changed to 'Under Review. After the 1st round of review one of the reviewers rejected the manuscript and subsequently the paper was rejected by the editor. Everyone is happy, the editor makes a decision, and you move on. What does this mean and what is the probability of rejection? After two revisions (the first major and the second minor), the Editor Assigned status means that the manuscript is with the Associate Editor (AE) to review the second round of changes and also the manuscript as a whole. I forgot to add my cover letter to the submission. The editor could make a decision based on the reviews she's received so far. After 1 week, the submission’s status changed to "under review" and two weeks after that the status changed to "with editor". Understanding customized editorial statuses can help authors understand which stage a submission is at within the peer-review process. After second revision, the submission’s status changed from "major revision" to "with editor". However, although the paper went under review on 6th September, the status date of the paper have changed several times. I submitted a review paper to a Springer-based journal. In addition, the Journal welcomes high quality review articles that summarise, compare, and evaluate methodologies and representations that are proposed for the field of engineering informatics. I wanted to know how long it takes for the final decision made by the editor and reviewers. It is under review since March 15th, 2019. After 1 week later the paper status has changed to "under review" and then after two weeks later the paper status has changed to "with editor". From one comment on a forum, I read that this basically means that my manuscript was desk rejected. Manuscripts move from "Required Reviews Complete" to Only one reviewer was assigned after second revision and the paper is under review for last seven months. Your new or revised submission has been sent back by the Editorial Team for changes prior to review. After a while, yesterday the status changed to "Awaiting AE Recommendation". After submitting the revised article for a week, a ADM was assigned and the status has changed to "awaiting reviewer invitation. Publishing can be very frustrating. I revised the paper accordingly and addressed the feedbacks. However, after reviewers completed their assignments, the authors do respond to Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. As it was a major revision, the Associate Editor (AE) would have sent the revised manuscript back to the reviewers, sometime after you re-submitted, say, January end. They consider either being with the editor or the reviewers This article discusses steps to take your submitted journal article from the revisions needed stage after peer review toward journal acceptance. But at my surprise, Elsevier management system is now displaying 'Under review' again. He/She wanted to provide more details in some parts of my manuscript. ' To answer your actual question, that’s quite simple. same "review complete" status but different date. However, although the paper went under review on 6th September, the status date of Revisions Required: A recommendation for further consideration; the journal is willing to reconsider the manuscript in another round of decision making after the authors consider the reviews and modify the manuscript. 2016 and send a letter to editor-in-chief to clear the status of the paper and any potential problem due to this delay. After a couple of months of the peer review process, the response was “major revision has been requested”. I had a revision decision, and after I submitted the revision, the status went to "Under review", and after about 4 weeks, it has now changed to "Awaiting reviewer scores". After viewing in Manuscript Information Overview, on the decision editor section: The time after the revised version submission were 21 days (now, June 24). Now, again it Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. After 3 weeks my paper status was changed to "Required reviews completed" but after a day it was changed to "Under Some journals give reviewers 60 days, others give 40 days, 30 days, or 20 days to review a paper. Hi, We have submitted our manuscript to an Elsevier journal and it came back with major revision. To respond to your queries until then, it’s a bit unusual that the revised manuscript (for a minor revision decision) has gone to Under Review, which mostly means that the peer reviewer/s need/s to look at your changes. The High Court enjoys the power of revision under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I had submitted a manuscript to a Springer journal. The various status updates are as follows. Three weeks later, the status has changed to Decision in Process. I had sent a paper to a non-ISI journal. What does that mean? Does it mean the manuscript has I submitted my paper to an Elsevier journal. The next status should make things clearer. The reviewer doesn't submit a review. This depends a lot on the manuscript management system, and the editorial practices. In case of a After resubmitting my revised manuscript on 20th of June, the status changed to 'under review' after only 4 days and then after 6 days (on 30th of June) it changed to 'required reviews completed. After one day of submission, status was ‘Awaiting Decision’; but now after 10 days, status change into ‘Awaiting reviewer selection’. ' Now, after three weeks, the status date of the manuscript has changed, but the status remains 'Reviewers Assigned. Usually, peer review for a revised paper takes shorter time compared to the original manuscript. After sending the query, the reviewers' comments came just within 4 days suggesting a minor revision. (1) Some journals carry an internal review firstly before sending the manuscript for external review. After 10 months, I received a major revision and a minor revision decision by the [two] reviewers. However, I just noticed that the status of my I submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal. So, overall IEEE Access is prestigious journal with quick In general, in the context of the process of publishing in scientific journals, the phrase “wait for the results of the review after review” refers to the period it takes for the research to On the fourth day, it went from "Under Editorial Board Review" to "Pending Recommendation". The first mission of the editor is to assign reviewers and take a decision depending on their return. I have heard that reviewers are given 14 days to send their reports to the journal. One reviewer suggested minor corrections and one reviewer suggested major corrections. Revision. Last edited: Sep 6, 2019. Please note that I have a time restriction for getting an official review. I revised the manuscript according to their review and all reviewers indicated that they like my revision. (I wasn't explicitly asked to send my paper for language editing. As I continue through more secondaries, would it be appropriate to instead list ("Manuscript Under Revision, [Journal Name]") Members don't see this ad. It may be that one journal uses the term “in review” and another the term “under review”, both to signify the same thing: that your I would like to ask whether you had a similar experience. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. After resubmission, it changed to "Under review" after 12 days, and then "Reviewer request completed" after another 3 days, but it changed to "Under review" again after 7 days. If the status changes to “Under review,” it means that your paper has been sent to a reviewer again. But here the chances are 50:50 depending on the reviewers comments. MDPI journals give only 10 days, but it can be extended if the reviewer needs more time. Finally, 18 days later, the status changed to "Under review. You should have However, it was under review for 5 months. The reason with it is now Editor Assigned can be due to several reasons. After one week, the status changed to Under Review. Then, the status changed to Required Reviews Completed. If the editor made a decision, it should be 'decision in progress'. Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1949 mentions the power of superintendence of the High Court. What does it mean? For the first week of submission, the status was "with editor" and then it changed to under review for one week, then reviewers asigned for the next two days then again changed to under review for The number of required reviews can be changed on the right-hand side. I submitted a paper to a prominent journal in my field. Some journals/publishers signify even the second round of review as Under Review, which is typically meant for the first review of the manuscript, rather than the I am waiting for the response of my resubmitted manuscript. In the event of an appeal, the higher authority examines and rehearses the entire ruling. I also would not state the journal to which the paper is submitted to because I do not see how this says anything about the quality of the paper. However, the Under Review status changed to Reviewers Assigned on Oct 17 and again to Reviewers Assigned on Oct 19. Dear Frank T. There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article Dive into the dynamics of manuscript status changes in peer review. Today, another of my articles was accepted. I done the revisions and i submitted last week. What does The status was "With Editor" for three weeks, then it changed to "Under review", since 2 weeks. In case of a It sounded like their "under review" meant basically "Under Editor's Review". Now, again it I submitted a manuscript to an Elsevier journal and received comments from two reviewers. Could you guide me what it means and is it possible the reviewers reject it despite their first opinions? For most journals, a status change from "With Editor" to "Under review" would indicate that the paper has cleared the editorial check and has been sent for external peer review. I revised and resubmitted. Is that right? I got major revisions. Right after 1 month, its status changed to Under Review. However, occasionally additional issues may arise or the changes were not addressed adequately, and in this case the paper may need to undergo a second round of revision. The status after 3 days . Elsevier tracker says "Required reviews completed" but Editorial Manager status still says "Under review". The status "Under review" appeared even before an Editor was assigned to your paper. We’ve added links to these resources below: This is a bit unusual, but here’s what it probably means. Uncover factors influencing review duration and decode transitions from 'Required Review Completed' to 'Under Review. One approach to doing this is to simply copy all revision suggestions into a document and type your response under each one. " On my primary app and all previous secondaries, I simply listed this paper as "Manuscript Under Review". Sent to/Received by Elsevier: Day 76. The status changed to "Required reviews completed" on 6th Nov, then back to "Under review," then again Upon sending review comments, some systems ask if reviewers are ready to carry out review after the authors make revisions. After the status 'Awaiting reviewer scores,' the status changed to 'Revision,' and the status is still active. ” This is the best one since it means that you passed the application process and there is a job ready for you. You can review a paper to garbage if you want. Required Reviews Completed: Day 73. Decision (Accepted): Day 75. " The paper has been under review for 1 year and 9 months. Now, again it First of all, congratulations! Your article was considered for a peer review. After you complete the submission, brief your coauthors and wait for the decision If however, the paper has been showing the status "Under review" from the time of submission, without any other status change, then it could mean that your paper is still under the initial admin check by the journal and has not yet been assigned to an Editor or reviewer. The status changed to With Editor on September 5, then directly changed to Decision in I checked the link again after 3 days and I noticed that the date has changed to 19th of April (check the attached image) with the same status of "Review Complete". I'm second author and submission is at a high impact journal. September 4: The status changed to Reviews Completed. However, I figured out that there is a "Revision due date: May, 4th, 2019". October 5: I submitted the revised manuscript. To date, the status is “under review”. Moreover, careful revision for grammar and typos have been suggested. The number of required I sent a paper to Journal of Cleaner Production and finally got minor revision after 6months. For the first week of submission, the status was "with editor" and then it changed to under review for one week, then reviewers asigned None of the answers above are accurate at least in my scenario. Hi! I submitted an application for Delta around 2 hours ago. By: Alison McGonagle-O’Connell, Marketing Manager, Aries Systems Corporation The reviewer submits a review. What could be the reason for the current status? Is the review process completed or are more After two revisions, the paper went under review. Now, again it I submitted my manuscript to an SCI journal, and was asked to make some revisions. Required Reviews Complete: Day 44, revisions were then submitted back to EES 14 days later (Day 58). “Accepted” is one of the statuses after “Under review. After that we sent a rebuttal letter to editor. The paper status has changed from "major revision" to "with editor" after submitting the revised paper. Cite I have submitted a paper to a journal, and received the editors decision (Major Revision). However, the editor asked me to improve my abstract, introduction, and structure (as a second major The decision may invoke another round of peer review at a later stage if you are invited to revise and resubmit your article (see decision notification e-mails and what they mean, below). The status of the paper has since changed from "Under Review" to "Decision Pending", and recently, maybe 4 days ago, the status has changed to "Decision Pending Approval". I sent the review reports addressing all the Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. " Around 3 weeks later, they updated the status "under review" again. I submitted my manuscript to a journal. " The editor assured me that they will encourage the reviewer to submit the response. The status “under review” means that the reviewers had accepted the invitation and peer review process had begun. I got review reports after one month of submission. After making the necessary adjustments, I resubmitted the revised manuscript on the 21st of November. From a purely grammatical perspective there’s not much difference between the two terms. Power of Superintendence (1) Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. After two months, the status changed to "reviewers assigned" and it remained the same for one day. I assumed that this status meant that my manuscript was finally sent to reviewers and was being under review by them. The AE requests the author(s) to revise the manuscript and resubmit with response or rebuttal to the reviewer comments. The good news is that the comments were mainly suggestions for the lit review, offering citations to add and Papers that are published independently while your manuscript is under review or under revision at Nature Communications are also not considered to compromise Decision after review and revision. Reviewers Especially the status 'Under review' encompasses many steps; while it may appear your manuscript is not progressing through the editorial process, a lot of activities may be happening during this part of the review process. I Under review or "in review" are normal and I have used them myself when publishing several papers near simultaneously. The letter shows that the reviewers "have asked for some other minor revisions". I got a confirmation email, and upon checking my status, discovered that it says qualifications under review. October 25: The status I again edited my manuscript as the reviewer suggested and submitted the revised version. After that, it changed to "under review" but now, after 20 days, again it changed to "reviewers assigned. Now I am curious about what this might mean. Under review: The paper is now under review. I feel However, I do not know how to present my under-review works. I have submitted my manuscript in one of the top journal of Elsevier. Thus your review of a revised manuscript should be relatively quick and may only involve checking that certain requested actions have been done. How long will the status of my paper show "Under Review?" Should I send a reminder if my paper has been under review for nearly four months? We also recommend useful handbooks on manuscript submission statuses and jouranl communicaion by R Upskill, our sister brand. Final Disposition: Day 76. We sent the manuscript with minor revision but now it is again under revision for 15 days. (They were separate enough, different chemistries, that I thought made sense to cut into separate articles. If the manuscript clears the internal check, it will be sent for peer review. After the paper was in the With Editor status for about a month, it went to Under Review for about four months. Does "Under Review" mean that the paper has passed the editorial check? these are the statuses, respectively, for when the paper is in peer review (‘Awaiting reviewer scores’) and after Read 4 answers by scientists with 1 recommendation from their colleagues to the question asked by Sanyam Sharma on Nov 21, 2022 If not, and it directly went to ‘Under Review’ after submission, this indicates the internal check (for aspects such as scope match, novelty factor, quality of the writing, and adherence to guidelines). Under Review: Day 65. On March 24, it changed to Required Under Review: Day 14. In the second-round I recently resubmitted a manuscript after making major revisions. I submitted the revisions within a few days, and thought that the editor would deal with them quickly. If there is doubt of any kind after a set of reviews then getting new eyes on the problem may be the only way to assure that what is published has real value and helps form the foundation of moving Hello, everyone. That is a good sign! Based on what your description of the situation, it appears as though the journal is editor is currently unavailable to consider your revision. In this case, you will notice that the duration of Under Review is relatively short for 1-2 weeks. After getting the minor revision letter, I immediately completed the revision in accordance with the feedback from the reviewers (the suggested changes just involve adding a few sentences) and immediately resubmitted the revision to ScholarOne. What I have heard was that minor revision does not require another round of revision in most of the If the previous editorial decision was C (revise & re-review) or D (major revisions & re-review), the paper will be sent for re-review to the original reviewers, together with your responses. Review is one of the most important parts to ensure justice and this principle is almost present in every democratic country. ) I read the manuscript again and again After major revision, two reviewers gave me minor revision (only change one word) and the editor was pleased to consider publication. 2015" to "Under review, date 2nd Feb. under review" and it lasted 1 I submitted my manuscript on Oct 5 in a Springer Psychology journal. Reviewers will assess the technical soundness and scientific validity of your methods, analysis and interpretation, all of which must be appropriate, properly conducted, ethically robust and fully supported by the data. Similarly, summaries and comparisons of full-scale applications are welcomed, particularly those where scientific shortcomings have hindered success. same citation format as all your other papers, but "under review" or "submitted" instead of the publication year. 3 Recommendations. Only thing I can do is to get my finger crossed. After three months, it changed to Revise, but I'm not aware of its type, [whether] major or minor. The Associate Editor is usually a member of the PLOS Sustainability and Transformation Editorial Board, but occasionally a "major revision": The revised paper will require a second round of reviews. If the paper is not with reviewers, the status should be 'with editor'. Cite. The status changed to With Editor on February 28 and to Under Review on March 2/3. No. After one week, I submitted my revised manuscript, responding to all reviewers’ comments. On average, just give me a rough estimation, how long does it take for the revised manuscripts to be checked because I feel it takes time for that reviewer to give feedback? In my field (chemistry), the practice is: for those journals that make a clear distinction between minor and major revision requests, “major revision” means that the paper will have to undergo further review after revision, usually by the same referees, while “minor revision” means that while changes should be made, no further reviewing is needed. The status was "with Editor" until 2 weeks and then it went to "under review. While the reviewers had explicitly mentioned that there were minor issues, with about four issues a piece, the The status was "With Editor" for three weeks, then it changed to "Under review", since 2 weeks. ’ What is going one? Is this a sign of acceptance or rejection? By the way, there were two After completing internal checks, each new submission is assigned to a Section Editor. " I requested the return of the manuscript to make changes and resubmitted on July 26th. I then resubmitted the paper a month later. Now, the status of the paper has changed from "Under review, date 19th Aug. ' In conclusion, it is essential to acknowledge that the review process can be a lengthy one, and multiple rounds of reviews and revisions may be necessary before a final decision is reached. In this case, the reviewers were already lined up to get the revision, and so it doesn't make sense for TIP: journals have different revision deadlines which vary from as little as a few weeks to three months depending on the revisions that need to be made. Publishing agreement/Offprint order/Color figures After 12 months waiting period, finally, my paper was revised, and it was accepted after two months of revisions. This iterative nature is designed Both the reviewers appreciated the work and had some questions and suggestions for improvement. Some journals show the under review status from the time the paper gets to the editor in chief through to the reviewers. In any case, you should definitely send a polite inquiry to the journal One of my recent experience is that Iam yet to get a final decision on a co-authored article of mine even after completing the final revision few months ago. The paper was accepted with minor revision (two reviewers both recommended 'minor revision'). This article has been written by Pankhuri Anand, a student of Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan, and Ritu Aggarwal, pursuing a Certificate Course in Advanced Civil Litigation: Practice, Procedure and Drafting from According to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a party that is offended by the court's judgment may appeal the decision made by the trial court or lower court to a higher court better to grasp terms like reference, review, and revision. This is not an unusual process and is encountered with several scientific Stage 3: Peer review. If however there were status updates before this one (such as A very few papers rejected after revisions. The paper received an R&R last summer and a revised version was provided. Now, from my earlier experience, I am worried uf they again take 5 months to Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. However, I made all the suggested changes and resubmitted the paper on August 11. I resubmitted the revised manuscript, after which the status showed that the review process had been completed. Hence the first Editor Assigned to Under Review. 5 months ago. With Editor: Day 60. The day I submitted the The fact that the status of your manuscript had changed from “editor assigned” to “under review” indicates that your manuscript has cleared the initial screening and reviewers were invited to review your manuscript. It is possible. After a few days, the status changed to "Awaiting Review Scores". Cross-check all your revised submission components before approving the revised submission pdf file. pqloqm soh ickifvl otfbygm gkkfac ocvy yvx fybxc kcfp xnlfbon