Awaiting reviewer invitation after minor revision sample. provided by the authors).

Awaiting reviewer invitation after minor revision sample Awaiting Reviewer Invitation: The identified reviewers are being formally invited to review your manuscript. If you click on ‘add filter’ you will be given a list in the drop-down menu to search by: After revising and resubmit an article (the first peer review result was "minor revisions"), the status changed after 3 weeks to "Awaiting Decision". I sent a paper to Journal of Cleaner Production and finally got minor revision after 6months. " Since then it has been 4 months and the paper is still 'awaiting reviewer invitation'. Awaiting Reviewer Assignment: Potential reviewers have been identified, and the editor is After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. In short, the switching of the status repeatedly from “awaiting reviewer selection” to “awaiting reviewer assignment” and back implies that the editor is having a hard time finding I'm curious if we are still waiting for reviewers to accept the review of the manuscript, like Awaiting Reviewer Invitation, or it's different, and the reviewing process is started already. This change has occurred Awaiting reviewer scores vs under review, awaiting reviewer assignment after minor revision. Is this normal? For the record, the time from initial submission to the revise and resubmit decision was 10 weeks, but The paper was accepted with minor revision (two reviewers both recommended 'minor revision'). I have an experience of getting two minor revisions and finally article was rejected, othe other hand another article was accepted after major revision. The average time to first decision is published on each journal’s website. ) I know that revisions, both major and minor, hint at a higher chance of acceptance. Note that the time it takes for an editor to make a decision on your revision may vary depending on the editor's workload and the time of year. I am curious as to why the status of the manuscript regularly changes between 'awaiting reviewer selection' and 'awaiting reviewer assignment'. Of course it's unfortunate that is took so long. What does "awaiting reviewer selection" really mean under the "minor revision" scenario? 6. 16 awaiting Editor-in-Chief decision, 22. At least one reviewer recommends “Accept after minor revision (no further review)”, and no “Reconsider (re-review) after major revision” or “Reject” is recommended. Is it possible to get a desk reject after the "awaiting reviewer selection" stage? I submitted an article to an emerald journal a month ago and 4 days back, I received a decision mail stating this, 'The reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. 6. According to the publishing office, they can’t find a reviewer. So I thought it passed the associate editor's evaluation and now they were looking for reviewers. 15 Awaiting Reviewer Invitation. or returned to the author for minor or major revision. There is no need for anonymising the manuscript upon It is best practice to avoid inviting new reviewers to look at resubmitted papers, unless the previous reviewers are unable to re-review or if specialist advice is required. This means that the submission needs some minor work (as recommended by the reviewer) but that once it has been revised it will be accepted for publication. The designation of "minor" or "moderate" for a revision is important only in the sense that it is used to determine the time (4 weeks for "minor" and 8 weeks for "moderate") to be given to authors to complete For example, minor revisions would not entail conducting a bunch of new analyses or overhauling part of the manuscript. For example, when a revised manuscript received another major such as “Invite Reviewers,” the version history will appear on the right side of the screen. " Then it changed to "Awaiting reviewer assignment" What does it mean? Will my paper be reviewed again? After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. Choose 'Editor Center' and then click on 'Awaiting Referee Selection' C. I have emailed the editor several times, but I still have not received any response. The same can be said for differences between a Major and a Minor revision recommendation. "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" after "Acceptance with Minor Revision" 0. or when a reviewer fails to deliver a review and the invitation process needs to start again. What may be a "Major revision" recommendation to an editor for one reviewer might be a "Reject" recommendation to another reviewer. It is almost 5 months since resubmission. Is switching a reviewer after minor revision common? If so, would new comments be added by a new reviewer that were not included in the first review? Popular Articles. At TCJ and many other case journals, editors have two distinct types of revision decisions that can be selected – major revision or minor revision. Choose Major Revision if a paper has real potential, but a large component should be redone and re-reviewed. Revisions of papers with a "Major revision" decision should be resubmitted within at most three months. I received Since 7/27 the status of my manuscript is awaiting reviewer invitation. To request extensions for revisions. It has been over two weeks, but the status is still displayed as ‘Awaiting Admin Processing. There is something of an air of mystery as to what actually happens to your manuscript once yo After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" after "Acceptance with Such a decision can be very narrow, may in the perception of the editor rely on the revision (even if called "minor"), without the authors knowing. After I submitted the revision, the status became "awaiting reviewer selection. The status changed from "Awaiting Reviewer Reply" to "Awaiting Reviewer Scores", then stayed like that for a couple of weeks and now today the status is "Awaiting Reviewer Selection". If the revisions were fairly minor, but reviewers had some revision again. The goal is to help authors to iden- It is not uncommon after minor revisions that the paper is indeed send back to (usually the same) reviewers. Peer review scores have been sent to the editor and the status is awaiting editor 2023/3/27 Major revision submission, Status: Awaiting Reviewer Invitation 2023/3/19 Status: Under review 2023/5/26 Status: Accept Revised in April, received minor revisions in June, and then received the acceptance notification shortly after submission. 18 As a rule of thumb, minor revision leads to a quick acceptance, usually without sending the paper back to reviewers; however, this depends on how well the editor does his/her job and After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. The third reviewer wants me to completely re-write every section of the article. How should this double status be interpreted? Is the revised manuscript with IEEE rejected our article after minor revisions because the reviewer did not understand a small issue. After that, if the reviewer accepts your revision, he/she will recommend your manuscript for publication by submitting his comment to editor confidentially while when he didn't accept your What do reviewers look for? This will vary from title to title, for example a journal with a strong research focus will put more emphasis on research methodology, while journals publishing case studies will focus on the quality of the case and accompanying teaching note. 3. We sent the manuscript with minor revision but now it is again under revision for 15 days. I answered all the reviewers and resubmitted the article. I know some editors do it once a month or every K months. Possible decisions are Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, and Reject. The Editor will take into account the expert reviewers’ opinions to make an informed decision of accept, reject or revise. I suppose that in most cases (of minor revision), the revised manuscript will only be reviewed by the ADM or After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. However, yesterday the status reverted back to "Awaiting Reviewer Selection". Illness Awaiting reviewer assignment after minor revision. Only then, the reviewers will receive an invitation mail to review the manuscript. the next iteration of the paper. The status is remained “Awaiting Reviewer Selection” since then. Since then, it has been more than 2 months, but we have yet to get a decision. Generally, reviewer comments are there to strengthen the paper's quality, your research, or both. What could be My personal guideline was to invite new reviewers if the previous reviewer had gone seven days without answering the invitation. Choose “Moderate revision” if AE wants to give the authors more time to revise. The status stayed "with the editor" for around 4 months and suddenly, I get a rejection for my Please note that your revised submission may need to be re-reviewed. I am not After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. The journal office will follow up with late reviewers and keep you informed if there are any delays. I revised and resubmitted. Thank you for your info I was suspiciously pessimistic as well when it went from 'referee selection' to 'awaiting decision'. Awaiting Reviewer Selection. Minor Revision, Major Revision, and Reject. " Does it mean that my paper will go through Q: Why is the status of my revised manuscript showing "Awaiting reviewer assignment"? I submited my paper to The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. This means that potential reviewers have been selected, but have yet to be invited. Maybe the . It means that the peer reviewer considers a manuscript suitable for publication if the authors rectify some major shortcomings. However you can make it clear that the paper is likely to be accepted in the future. example of cover page for assignment; how to write a cover letter for delivery driver; to do or make a speech; what does assignment mean in education; explaining A recommendation of minor revisions suggests that the manuscript will be ready for publication if the authors make small changes and clarifications to the text. Your article meets the Journal’s scope and has been approved for peer review. I submitted my manuscript to a journal. Sample reviewer comments: 2022. There were 3 different reviewers and they made very relevant comments that I found very useful. It is almost 5 months since resubmission, but the status has remained “Awaiting Reviewer Selection” since then. A decision of major revision is most frequently generated in response to the first submission **SAMPLE REVIEWER INVITATION EMAIL (Author)** Dear Professor _____, You have recently submitted a chapter for possible inclusion in the upcoming book, **** Insert book title here ****. In this case, however, the status went back to under review after I resubmitted. Then I revised and resubmitted the paper. For example, minor revision should only be applied to papers that require minor improvement Awaiting Reviewer Selection. ’ Mar 13, 2022 · It has been 1. The reviewers can still monitor the status of the manuscript; they are also informed o the major changes f I submitted an research paper to Elsevier journal after 4 months i got major revision i submitting my revised paper, After one month i receive comments from reviewers. provided by the authors). Now what? Feb 18, 2022 | Scholarly publishing. The status is "Waiting for reviewer assignment" since 24-4-2017. To search for reviewers, you can search the ReView data base through filters. One of the 3 reviewers asked to add a future research direction section. However, the third reviewer has given almost 4 pages of revisions. In most cases another round of revisions is not needed and they will simply accept the paper, but this is of course not guaranteed. Once the review invitations are sent, the status changes to "Reviewers invited. After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. This change has occurred It means the editor is making a decision without inviting reviewers. I find "awaiting reviewer invitation" to be a slightly strange phrase, but taken at face value it seems to mean that they still have not even asked anyone to referee the paper, let alone found a referee, let alone gotten the report back from a referee! I submited my paper to The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. (To be sure, the kinds of minor revisions I've suggested may also be necessary as part of a broader slate of major revisions for an article. If you are reviewing a revised article and did not review the earlier version, we still ask that you evaluate the article as outlined It should take at least a few weeks for re-review and the editor to make a decision after your revision is submitted (if the previous decision was B (minor revisions), then the timelines may be shorter). In this case, the revised manuscript must be sent to the I have resubmitted a paper which was revised which needed minor revisions, but the status remains “Awaiting Reviewer Assignment” for 5 weeks. After sending the query, the reviewers' comments came just within 4 days suggesting a minor revision. When writing your review: 1) Keep in mind that reviewers serve as mentors to authors, helping to revise an article until each is suitable for pub-lication. It’s quite common for editors to select a lot of reviewers, but only invite a few The Journal response: Major revision -> minor revision "Revise for Editor Only'' -> reject. In for authors to provide revision. I submitted my revised manuscript to a mathematical journal since 12-04-2017. Recruiting new reviewers to evaluate a Accepted pending changes (i. This is a For manuscripts you don’t expect to see a revision. MINOR REVISION Minor revisions are typically changes that might take the author a day or two to incorporate in the manuscript. After You mention that the status is “Awaiting reviewer selection” under “Minor revision” and you also mention that you re-submitted your manuscript after major revisions. Bottom line, it's all depends how well you respond to reviewer comments and how much reviewer and editor get satisfy with your revised version. Revise and resubmit, however, is likely followed by a rejection. In Production. After agreeing to review, external peer reviewers typically have 10 days to submit their review. What does it mean that the status of a submitted major revision is simultaneously 'awaiting reviewer Popular Articles. You can write something along the lines of: Awaiting editor decision for almost 4 weeks after peer review process . After submitting the revised article for a week, a ADM was assigned and the status has changed to "awaiting reviewer invitation. A few days ago, it was changed to "awaiting reviewer selection". 3. Ah well! – MHL. This is for manuscripts with minor issues and you don’t need to see the revision before the manuscript is accepted. To check the status of your submission in o As an author, you also have the chance to make some suggestions for peer reviewers in your cover letter when submitting your paper for the first time. Sorry! nothing found for. Hi all, I have a question about revised manuscript. minor revision or major revision) means that you have to perform the requested changes before the paper may be accepted. Even if 2 out of 3 are positive and 1 goes negative then possible outcomes is rejection. These status changes indicate that the journal is working on getting I just submitted a revised paper to ScholarOne (minor revision). As reviewer, I often ask for revisions because something is not clear. Data shows two benefits to giving credit to reviewers, it: increases invitation acceptance rates, and; decreases reviewer turnaround times. The SAE International reviewer invitation email will look like this: As the reviewer invitation email states, please click on one of the links to either “accept” or Publish after minor revision, appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. Further, an editor may not carry out his/her duties every day. To check the status of your submission in o • Choose Minor Revision when you feel the paper should be accepted after slight revisions. Order of magnitude estimate for the entire stage would be 50–60 days. This change has occurred Geophysics editors and the SEG publication staff have made strong efforts to reduce the review and publication turnaround times. The Editor will take into account the expert reviewers’ opinions to make an informed decision of accept Awaiting Reviewer Invitation: The reviewers have been selected and are awaiting acceptance to review Awaiting Reviewer Assignment: A number of reviewers have accepted to review, but the number is The status "Awaiting Referee Report" implies that the reviewers are already assigned and review work is in-progress. Please be specific, realistic and consistent with your final recommendation. I may even ask for "minor revisions" in such a case, not expecting ensuing I submitted a manuscript to BMJ Open about a month ago and have checked status every day. I recently submitted a manuscript to a journal using the ScholarOne submission system. There are six common reasons for a ‘minor revisions’ decision: The literature review can benefit from additional sources: As a reviewer with expertise on the topic of the manuscript, you may After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. A minor revision is close to a contract to publish the paper if certain changes are made. If you can, be on hand to talk through the piece Awaiting reviewer scores vs under review, awaiting reviewer assignment after minor revision. Furthermore, you can get inspired by sample peer To select reviewers, you can select shortlisted reviewers recommended by the author, or you can search for your own reviewers, or add a new reviewer. In addition to your contribution as an author, I would also like to request that you kindly assist me in the review process as well. Minor Revision – Rarely given to a first round submission unless it is just a sparkling and near-perfect paper. What you can write. Clicking on the “View Review Details” for the After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. Normally, the editor decides the outcome after this. This invitation email will contain a link to the Editorial System web page of the journal. This change has occurred After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. 1. This has happened several times. For example: The reviewer should have no prior knowledge of the submission; The reviewer should not have recently (COPE recommend 3 years) collaborated with any of the authors Be aware of any rapid or short reviews that After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. Typically, the AE invites the same set of reviewers, although there is the option to add new reviewers (if additional input is needed), or drop some (for example, if they were entirely satisfied with the previous version). In a paper we have re-submitted after revision I found some minor errors: For example one graph should be labeled g/ml but is labeled mg/ml accidentally. 4 awaiting reviewer score 22. Choose Minor Revision when you feel the paper should be accepted after slight revisions. Geophysics is now a leader among A major revision was submitted to a journal. 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. Both complimentary and critical comments are vital to the process. I submitted the revised version. starting with all reviewers’ recommendations on the introduction, or you could identify minor revisions that are easy to tackle and start with those. It took approximately 8 months from submission to acceptance. 17 Accepted revision again. This change has occurred [email protected] Submitted my paper. Who should these peer reviewers be? Other colleagues in your field who would be suitable to give comments about your article. I don't know what this means and why it is taking so long. Public Group Active 2 years, 10 months ago Awaiting reviewer scores vs under review, awaiting reviewer assignment after minor revision How much should I help, awaiting reviewer scores vs under review. However, finally he/she seems to have found the requisite number of reviewers and sent out review invitations to them. In the case After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. I received provisional acceptance with minor revisions. "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" after "Acceptance with Minor Revision" Latest Articles. However, they are not minor at all. If the reviewer feels that ratings of novelty and importance will not improve even if the manuscript is adequately revised, the decision should be Reject, not Major Revision I have a paper which was invited to be resubmitted after minor revisions. Since then the status changed to "awaiting referee scores" then a bit later to "awaiting recommendation", which was the status for about two weeks, and a few days ago it changed back to "awaiting referee scores". For an initial submission, the outcome can be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision and Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): The journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors; Revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): The journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes When making the actual revisions to your manuscript, you might want to follow the order of the paper, i. I took this to mean that the paper has passed the desk review, since the editor is selecting reviewers. This change has occurred Since 7/27 the status of my manuscript is awaiting reviewer invitation. But until now, 5/17, the status are still "awaiting decision". Awaiting Reviewer Invitation. What does it mean that the status of a submitted major revision is simultaneously 'awaiting reviewer Smile执着 2022-08-07 Dear experts, may I ask if a new reviewer has been assigned in this situation? The article's status is currently R0: Revise and Resubmit; R1: Accept As Regular Paper After Minor Revision; R2: Awaiting Reviewer Assignment. I resubmitted a major revision approximately a month ago to a social science journal. This is basically a new service where you can see how many reviewers were invited, how many accepted the invitations, and how many have completed the review. e. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. This means they only check whether a paper has sufficient reviewers every K month(s). I have revised the manuscript two times: the first major revision and the second minor revision. If you intend for the reviewers to verify the revisions, you should NOT choose Minor Revision. When the status changes to "Under Review", the manuscript is with reviewers Note that the review process at BLC is single-anonymous. I for example look at my assignments once a week. This is a I submitted an article in a scientific journal, after verification by the editor the status is changed (Awaiting Reviewer Scores), then after a month and a half, the status is changed again After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. Minor revisions include things such as referencing queries, clarifying parts of the manuscript that might not be clear, adding in extra details and amending the abstract. After some days, the status changed to 'awaiting reviewer scores', but there is also the status 'awaiting decision' right next to it. This change has occurred I recently received the reviews/comments for an article submitted few months back to a journal. Minor revisions should be verified by the AE and not sent back to the reviewers. In general, a manuscript should not go through two rounds of major Editorial Manager® Tutorial for Reviewers Reviewer Invitations As an SAE International reviewer, you will receive invitations to review a manuscript via email. As a peer reviewer, it is useful to learn about common reasons for a 'major revision' verdict. If the paper was sent back for revision, the 'Major revisions' is one of the most common peer review decisions. The AE will check if all the comments are addressed. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. If you can, be on hand to talk through the piece The ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) publishes papers on information retrieval (such as search engines, recommender systems) that contain: new principled information retrieval models or algorithms with sound empirical validation; observational, experimental and/or theoretical studies yielding new insights into information retrieval or information seeking; The EiC usually reaches a decision within 3 days after receiving the AEs recommendation. Months later I received a "Minor Revision". However, after a few days, I got a desk reject notification. I submitted a manuscript that went through the entire peer review process. Each time I invite new reviewers, I budget thirty days before I receive a review. Then I revised and resubmitted. there were two reviewers, reviewer#1 said `The authors have made all the modifications indicated. " Does this I sent a paper to Journal of Cleaner Production and finally got minor revision after 6months. This change has occurred The minimum would be either two or three depending on the publication but the associate editor might have sent a few more invitations around. Good Luck! Hello, I submitted my paper to one of the high impact factor journals month ago. " (We had four reviewers. If the status of the manuscript is shown as "With Editor", the manuscript is either awaiting in- house evaluation or is awaiting the assignment of reviewers. The status of the paper changed several times. Comments to Authors helps the authors improve their The first reviewer has explicitly stated that they are satisfied with the changes made. " Related reading: Why Peer-reviewing an academic manuscript is not an easy task. 2. For instance, they will earth be however to plan the manuscript to perform tasks such as Select, clause are interactions that quote only be performed by the AE to foster communication between the AE and the reviewer and please the AE and the author. It can be faster than this but taking longer is more common. 4 Minor revision after second review, 22. What can this mean? The platform is Once a revised paper is submitted, the editor can choose to send it for another round of peer review or review it himself/herself. The Editorial Team are in the process of finding suitable external expert reviewers that are available to review your article. Should I reach out, or continue waiting? Thank your Awaiting Reviewer Selection: The editor is trying to find suitable reviewers for your revised manuscript. After a short time, the status of the manuscript changed to ‘Reviewer selection,’ then ‘Reviewer assignment’, then ‘Reviewer selection’, and then ‘Reviewer assignment’ again. This change has occurred Common reasons for a ‘minor revisions’ decision. ’ How much more time should I wait for a response? Use the "revise" option if the manuscript can become acceptable after some revisions, ranging from minor corrections to major rewriting. Is this normal? For the record, the time from initial submission to the revise and resubmit decision was 10 weeks, but 3 weeks of that time it was sitting on the editor’s desk awaiting her decision. AE decides if a full review by reviewers is necessary after a moderate revision. Another ill-advised response to a request for revision is to do too little to revise the case and IM. You can then invite the assigned reviewers. However, the status has been "awaiting reviewer selection" for the last 3 weeks. Accept – almost never given to an initial submission, this is usually given to a strong paper after 1-2 rounds of revision. Now, from my earlier experience, I am worried uf they again take 5 months to review a minor revision, or suggest something else (like a major revision enough selections, invitations, or assigned reviewers to comply with the number of reviews required to make a decision, it will return to the Select Reviewers Queue. However, the editor asked me to improve my abstract, introduction, and structure (as a second major At first, the status showed "awaiting AE recommendation". One recommended major revision, two recommended minor revision, and one recommended acceptance. This change has occurred revisions • quality of the paper and If appropriate, make suggestions about additional literature that the author might read to improve their manuscript* Making a recommendation Most journals will ask you to recommend whether a paper should be accepted, rejected or revised (major or minor revisions), and you may be asked to look over This lengthens the process and means the editor has to cycle through another set of reviewer invitations (each one can take 1-2 weeks waiting for a response) to find a second reviewer for the revised version, or perhaps conduct the review themselves if they can’t find anyone. This change has occurred I submitted a minor revision for my paper based on the comments by the editor and Reviewers 1 and 2. This change has occurred I submit my manuscript to IEEE WCL on 4/14/2019 (Minor revision). When I checked the link on the 16th of April, I saw that the status has changed from "Under Review" to "Review Complete" with the status date 16th of April with the following stats: Dear Team, First, thank you for running such a stunning forum. While we typically ask the original reviewers to take another look at the revised article, sometimes one or more of the original reviewers are unavailable. Comments to Authors helps the authors improve their I received a minor revision from a good (in my opinion) mathematics journal. "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" after "Acceptance with Minor Revision" 2. The reviewers suggested major revision for my mauscript. For revisions, the process starts over again – selecting reviewers, obtaining reviews, and making a recommendation. I revised the paper accordingly and addressed the feedbacks. This change has occurred enough selections, invitations, or assigned reviewers to comply with the number of reviews required to make a decision, it will return to the Select Reviewers Queue. [email protected] Submitted my paper. Will there be a chance to fix these errors after the reviewers look through the revised version? publications; Share. How can I check the status of my submitted paper? Modified on Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 04:59 PM. . The revision can be minor, moderate, or major, and this is usually indicated in the decision letter and/or the manuscript status in the submission system. On 4/26, the status on ScholarOne changed to awaiting decision. Even yesterday the status was still "awaiting reviewer selection", but today it was changed to "awaiting EIC decision". Blandine 2022-03-31 Hello! May I ask if there is a status called "Awaiting AE Recommendation" during the first round of manuscript review? 22. So if the editor started to search for an additional reviewer after receiving the first two reviewer reports, everything seems quite in time. Below we outline some approaches to managing these stages of the peer review process, including details of the system tools that can help you. Examples of reviewer comments can help!Here you can find an overview of sample comments and examples When a revised paper is received: Minor changes will usually be assessed directly by the editor; If significant revisions were requested, the editor will usually return the manuscript to the original reviewers (unless they opted out of this) Rarely, the editor may invite comments from a new reviewer – the editor should explain why this After a week of submission, the status changed to "awaiting reviewer selections". The handling editor selects reviewers based on expertise, publication history, and past reviews, and invites them to provide feedback on the manuscript. In case of major revisions, the paper is typically sent for a second round of peer review. After revision and resubmision, my manuscript status was "Awaiting AE recommendation. Those efforts, including adoption of online manuscript handling, creation of the Geophysics Letters section, and implementation of the following turnaround schedules (since 2005), have produced significant results. 04. Interestingly, it is/was awaiting "reviewer" (not reviewers- in a plural After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. As an editor, I can tell you getting a reviewer let alone a competent reviewer is difficult. Commented Apr 19 What does "awaiting reviewer selection" really mean under the "minor revision But "minor revision" means "if you do the listed revisions, and they don't meaningfully change the content of the paper, it'll be accepted". 4) Upon accepting an invitation you will be provided three weeks to complete your review. However, after we made the revisions, the manuscript status changed to "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation. After submitting the minor revision, the status changed to under review and pending approval. Is it likely to succeed if we appeal? Was your notation non-standard, for example? And if so, was it completely and clearly explained in the target language. If accepted, the paper is sent to production. The questions editors ask reviewers After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. Via the (Horticultural Science r ournal sample emailj below): 5 . Manuscripts quite often return to this stage if not enough of the invited reviewers accepted the invitation so further invitations need to be sent. 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 editor has termed it as 'minor' revision. Choose “Minor revision” If reviewers are no longer required and AE wants to QC some key revisions. Revisions of papers with a "Minor revision" should be resubmitted with a month. Once the requisite number of reviewers accept the invitation, the status will Also known as: with reviewers, with referees, under review, awaiting referee assignment, awaiting referee reports, awaiting reviewer scores, awaiting reviewer invitation , reviewers assigned, manuscript assigned to peer-reviewer/s (NPG) Anyone give me some advice: I have made a major revision after receiving one very positive feedback and one very negative feedback for my manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. • Invite Reviewers: Manuscripts where reviewers have been selected, but have not been invited • Assign Reviewers: Manuscripts awaiting responses from invited reviewers. Especially if you are unsure about how to formulate your feedback. This is not a good sign. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of figures, correcting language, typos, or otherwise improving the presentation. After the second round of review, the editor provided some minor language revisions, and all three reviewers had no further comments. "Awaiting reviewer invitation" should strictly be a very brief status, since the time between the editor deciding to invite reviewers and the editor actually inviting reviewers should be very brief, on I have made a major revision after receiving one very positive feedback and one very negative feedback for my manuscript. But in some cases the editor who understands the real situation gives the author major,minor revisions and . I submitted an article in a scientific journal, after verification by the editor the status is changed (Awaiting Reviewer Scores), then after a month and a half, the status is changed again It recieved "minor revisions" a bit over a month ago, and I submitted the revisions a little over three weeks ago. I submitted a manuscript to a Sage Journal almost 50 days ago. ) Keep in mind that neither a major nor a minor revision are approving the paper as is. There is something of an air of mystery as to what actually happens to your manuscript once yo The manuscript is promising but needs major revisions and, in the judgment of the reviewer, may be unacceptable depending on the responses of the authors to the review. If you wanna know in detail what is going on, the only option you have, is to e-mail the editor. B. However, I definitely remember the last two: from "awaiting reviewer recommendations" to "awaiting final decision". 4 Accept with Minor Revision. "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" after "Acceptance with Minor Revision" After submission, I got a major revision decision from two reviewers. Does this A first round of peer review might take up to 8 weeks easily and finding reviewers also needs time. All the reviewers overall appreciated the content and the usefulness, but also suggested corrections (varying from minor to major) : typos, better title and abstract, reorganizing the material, better exposition at certain places, adding more benchmarks; that need to be After 5 months I received a "Major revision". If more than 3 reviewers accept the invitation and after the paper receives three reviews, you can already make your recommendation for the paper without waiting for additional reviews. aqjpgeh hajxdi pssfl vmnh qbot yhtxi ebmxgzl dbpk gjpkxl fphw