Under review after minor revision. I want to know how long will this status last.

Under review after minor revision We promptly did the revision and 6 months later we received the reports: one reviewer recommended acceptance and the other rejection, saying simply that the paper was not suitable for such a top journal. If the status changes to “Under review,” it means that your paper has been sent to a reviewer again. 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. Around the end of last year, the journal changed its chief editor who was responsible for my article. Then I received a reject letter from the new editor. In second round of review, first reviewer checks whether all his/her comments have been addressed or not. For the first week of submission, the status was "with editor" and then it changed to under review for one week revision. The ‘normal’ procedure is that once an editor received peer reviews of (at least) two reviewers you receive the request to respond (and send a revised manuscript). After submission of the very minor revision (changes only in 10 sentence) and proofreading, I have got this I submitted a manuscript to an Elsevier journal and received comments from two reviewers. However, after we made the revisions, the manuscript status changed to "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation. From wht I understand, you have re-submitted your manuscript after revision to the same journal and the status has changed from ‘Under review’ to ‘Revision’. Minor revision; Accept; Studies indicate that 21% of papers are rejected without review, and approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review. In my opinion, first round decides whether the quality and technicality of the paper is considerable or not. ) I read the manuscript again and again The paper was accepted with minor revision (two reviewers both recommended 'minor revision'). I have submitted my paper to a Sage journal. Minor Revision: The editors found your manuscript potentially acceptable for publication provided you make some minor adjustments. The status was "With Editor" for three weeks, then it changed to "Under review". Is the journal submission system showing the revised is under review? Major revision ought to go through review again (by the reviewers). Take the list of comments and suggestions and group them into categories, and then identify which require a minor revision and which require a major revision. Should I wait for them or write to them? Please suggest. Another possible factor is that some publications may only allow one major revision in the review process. No matter which decision you receive, be sure to read the entire decision letter carefully. If you're After two months, I received minor revision as the decision. One day later, the status changed as "editor assigned". Minor Revision: Publish without revision, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication. I submitted the revised manuscript after one-and-a-half months. One of the referee suggested minor revision, while the other suggested major revision. The status was changed to "Editorial assessment" soon, but 2 months have passed without progress since then. 모든 심사자가 받은 논문을 읽은 후 평가를 제출해야 하므로 상당한 시간이 소요될 수 있다. Any article submitted to any journal goes under review if found suitable and within the scope of that journal. Commented Mar 3, 2017 at 13:41 @MBK It's unusual to have such a delay, but could be any of those. that my manuscript requires minor revision. My article has been under review for seven months now, having undergone three revisions. On Jun 25, the status changed to Under Review right after i sent email to AE, and has remained so since then. マイナーリビジョンは、論文が採択される課程の1つで メジャーリビジョンを合格した後に来る課程 です。 メジャーリビジョンを合格したため、 原稿で主張している内容はレビューワから賛成されています 。 マイナーリビジョンとは、論文の主張は認められたものの、ミスがあるので I submitted my article to an Elsevier journal on August 5, 2020. Revise your paper. resulting in minor revisions and after submitting them, the paper was accepted within one day by the editor. Thus, it is difficult to tell how much time the final decision will take after a major revision. 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. There are three basic types of decisions: Accept, Revise, and Reject. But the status of the paper is showing "under review" again. In other words, if you receive such a revised manuscript for review, you should make either a recommendation to accept (possibly with a minor revision) or reject with no further consideration. Now, again it Currently under review at the International Journal of Foo. When a paper receives a minor revision decision, it might not be sent for a second round of peer review; usually, the editor goes through the revisions and Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations for some of the results or adding more results of control experiments that can be easily performed, that are not critical to supporting conclusions and that might not need further I submitted my manuscript on April 26th and I got the major revision in the first round and “accept after minor revision” in the second round. 6. One of my journal papers was under review in a reputed journal for over 2 years. Revision decisions do Publish without revision, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication. ' Is 8 days a long time to provide a final decision especially since the reviewers' responses were rather quick? Thank you for your answer. On December 22, the status changed to Under Review, and has remained so since 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. – The first review was a major revision, then after submission of revision, within two months, I have received a minor revision. These revisions were trivial, and so I resubmitted after one week. I have revised the paper according to the referees' comments. I sent an email to editor, who was handling my article, he said he can not see revised version on system. 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. The “Reject/Resubmit” should not be your recommendation unless there is some truly strong reason for allowing a 2nd revision — which you would need 经历了一次大修后进入pending editor decsion 然后学术编辑决定accept after minor revision。 修回去，现在又变 吧主您好，这边投稿分到一位塞尔维亚的编辑，投稿第二天就显示under review了，现在14天还没有消息，请问同行评审们一般是给多少时间审稿呢？ I submitted the manuscript to a Springer medical journal. However, after I performed minor edits and resubmitted it, it went to under-review. The good news is that the comments were mainly suggestions for the lit review, offering citations to add and 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". major revision 때는 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. Note that the time it takes for an editor to To answer your actual question, that’s quite simple. after that, the status change to with editor and thereafter a decision I submitted my article earlier this year in January. The decision letter is delivered to the author via email. Required reviews completed: Minimum number of reviews has been received. Typically, a reviewer’s decision falls in four categories: acceptance without revision, acceptance after minor revision, acceptance after major revision, and rejection. While the reviewers had explicitly mentioned that there were minor issues, with about four issues a piece, the editor had requested a major revision. It's important to distinguish your case of "five minor typos" and the more general case of receiving an email "accepted subject to minor revisions". Then, I have made all the necessary modifications and resubmitted. If it was submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the corrected revisions are sent back to the original 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 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). Now status of manuscript is changed to Editor Assigned again. For 3-4 days, the status of my manuscript status was showing to be Editor Assigned and after that status changed to Under Review. After making the necessary adjustments, I resubmitted the revised manuscript on the 21st of November. However, minor edits may be made and authors will need to work with the appropriate contacts to ensure these changes are incorporated after acceptance. I received a decision of ‘accept after minor revision’ for my submission to a Springer Nature journal. I want to know how long will this status last. The next status should make things clearer. 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 Hello, everyone. After that, it changed to Editor Assigned, and has been the same since January 17. I had received the following recommendation: accept subject to optional revision. and now after 40 days the status is still in that stage. I answered all the reviewers and resubmitted the article. The day I submitted the It is common that the paper goes to the under review after minor revision while only two comments are addressed in the minor revision . I made the revision and resubmitted in the last week of November 2020. However, the reviewer of my papers have pointed out some shortcomings of my paper. Recently. 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. Also, the second round took 8 months. If it is rejected after review, you can use the feedback for improvements. But sometimes the reviewers do not return to the Editor within the time Only one reviewer was assigned after second revision and the paper is under review for last seven months. . I submitted a manuscript to a BMC journal in the middle of July, and received a decision of minor revision in August. One month later, major revision was suggested. The normal trend of the journal shows acceptance of the majority of In the 2nd revision, I could not understand the editorial manager paper status meaning. I submitted the minor revision on the same day, status was with editor for 6 days but now its two weeks the status changed to Under Review. The statement was: ‘Your paper was found acceptable pending revision. Now, again it I have submitted my manuscript to a well-known journal on April 2, 2016. One reviewer's comment was for acceptance, while the other reviewer wanted clarification about Stage 3: Peer review. Depending on the extent of the minor revision, the editor may decide not to send it out for re-review. After one week, I submitted my revised manuscript, responding to all reviewers’ comments. Note that the time it takes for an editor to Review after minor revision [duplicate] Ask Question Asked 6 years, 5 months ago. ’ What is going one? Is this a sign of acceptance or rejection? By the way, there were two A rejected paper is sometimes resubmitted to the same journal, after some revisions. 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? I submitted a minor revision for my paper based on the comments by the editor and Reviewers 1 and 2. Today, another of my articles was accepted. Now, again it I just submitted a revised paper to ScholarOne (major revision). – semmyk-research. After 1 week, the submission’s status changed to "under review" and two weeks after that the status changed to "with editor". Im very worried. If a manuscript under revision is not re-submitted within 6 months or information on intended re-submission is not obtained, the submission may be terminated by formal rejection. After that, it changed to 'Under Review. After 10 months, I received a major revision and a minor revision decision by the [two] reviewers. and got a decision of "accept after minor revisions" with ~15 Try to recollect how the statuses changed when you submitted the paper the first time. The main concern of the reviewer was to add the details in methods section and some amendments in the text. More likely than anything else, it If the review is open and I know the author's name, I would consider refusing to review any more of this author's work, because there are few things more disrespectful of an academic than wasting his time. After the revision, the paper is sent back to the reviewers for checking the corrections and making their final decisions. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality Under review: When at least one reviewer agrees to review (status change from reviewer assigned to Under review). And claiming for the paper to be accepted, only for the admissions committee to find out that it’s in fact still under review would count against you in the process. The most likely scenario seems to be that the editor send your work after minor revision to the referee who was asking for it. After six months, I received the reviews and was asked to do major revisions. I submitted after the revision and received a reply stating that my paper could be accepted after a minor revision (provided the reviewer's queries are addressed). The paper is still in Under Review status. However, a paper with major revisions is almost always sent out for a re-review. I re-submitted the paper after incorporating these changes in the manuscript (I work in Biology field). Open comment sort options I have resubmitted a paper which was revised which needed minor revisions, but the status remains “Awaiting Reviewer Assignment” for 5 weeks. however, for minor revisions, the editor often does not feel the need to send the paper to external reviewers again. After peer review, the editor makes a decision based on the reviewer(s) recommendation(s) and their own assessment, which can be any of the following: A-accept (almost never after the first review round) B-minor revisions required (no further formal external peer review round required, editor makes decision) C-revise & re-review minor revision을 요청하는 레터에서 에디터는 "your manuscript is conditionally accepted pending revision" 라는 글을 주셨습니다. Then I re-submitted the revised form. The status was "With Editor" for one day, then on the next it changed to "reviewers assigned". Now, again it . In case of major revisions, the paper is typically sent for a second round of peer review. ’ I submitted the revised version, and now, the status is Under Review. I resubmitted the revised manuscript, after which the status showed that the review process had been completed. After review you may get two options major or minor revision. After the resubmission was competed the status of the manuscript was finally changed to “under review” after “editorial assessment” after 6 months. However, after reviewers completed their assignments, the authors do respond to Request a minor revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address specific concerns Request a major revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address significant concerns and After submitting major revision, my paper went for review, after that status again changed to "Under Review". The status has been showing " under review " for a month now. On December 5, I received a minor revision decision from one reviewer and a major revision decision from the other. It was rather an easy comment, so I resubmitted the case report after revision immediately. If the initial reviews are conflicting, the Action Editor may occasionally decide to approach an additional suitable for publication after some relatively minor changes. There were 3-4 little modifications required by referees. (Personally, I think what the comments meant is that it would be nice to have things include in my paper). There is no way for us to know how long it will still take, but the unfortunate truth is that I see little reason to believe it's gonna be much faster than any previous (major) revision. However, now, it has been over two weeks since I sent the revised manuscript, but the status is still showing as "With It is likely possible when paper sent new reviewer than earlier reviewers. Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations for some of the results or adding more results of control experiments that can be easily performed, that are not critical to supporting conclusions and that might not need further Despite people's frustration with such policy of unlimited number of revisions (Imagine being that person who got a rejection after 4 major revisions and the manuscript being under review for 3 years? --- this is not uncommon in the social sciences), some journals do retain such policy. Publish after minor revision, appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. 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 applications? Also, these conferences have double-blind review processes. After contacting I have a paper on a Springer journal with "Accept - with minor revision with1-2 little modifications related to citations of the references and refereence list ". These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality Minor revision. However, although the paper went under review on 6th September, the status date of the paper have changed several times. The paper status has changed from "major revision" to "with editor" after submitting the revised paper. They have given a major revision decision twice. Under review: The handling editor has invited peer reviewers to evaluate the submission. Does this indicate rejection? What does the status 'under editor evaluation' mean? HANDBOOK: Keep calm and wait: A guide to understanding journal statuses; Queries to the After submitting major revision, I got minor revision with only one comment from editor, while one reviewer accepted it (it was not sent to second reviewer). (I wasn't explicitly asked to send my paper for language editing. " This status has not been changed for a month. However, two days later, the status changed to ‘Under Review. I have submitted the revised manuscript on July 20. Share Sort by: Best. But here the chances are 50:50 depending on the reviewers comments. A major revision often requires more Many factors contribute to this decision such as importance of the research, originality of the work, quality of the study, and priority of the work compared to other manuscripts under review. 2 weeks of review time is really not very long, even for a minor revision (which, strictly speaking, yours apparently isn't, at least not to the editor). What I have heard was that minor revision does not After sending the paper to a top journal, we received two positive feedbacks after 12 months, asking only for minor revisions. If the editor made a decision, it should be 'decision in progress'. Hello. 아래와 같은 decision letter를 받았을 때, [under review] 학술지 논문심사_답변서 쓰기(response letter) 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. If yes, then reviewer provides his/her minor and major comments. Meaning of Decision in Process status after two rounds of revision Does "Under Review" mean that the paper has passed the editorial check? I guess the two rounds of revision were first a major revision and then a minor revision. And I am sure neither of them was the initial reviewer. 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. Both reviewers asked me to lengthen the introduction part and rewrite a convincing conclusion according to my research. However, I do not know how to present my under-review works. After major revision, two reviewers gave me minor revision (only change one word) and the editor was pleased to consider publication. there were two reviewers, reviewer#1 said `The authors have made all the modifications indicated. In cases where only minor or major revisions are recommended, MDPI staff will request that the author revise the paper before referring to the academic editor. What will be the I had a manuscript that was rejected after "minor revision. " What was odd was that the two reviewers for the second round did not talk about my revision at all, but treated the manuscript as a new submission. According to the publishing office, they can’t find a reviewer. Comments: In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted after minor revision. I got review reports after one month of submission. I submitted a manuscript to a journal that uses the ScholarOne system. Accept after minor revision. What is I have a paper on an Elsevier journal with "accept, minor revision". I have submitted a paper to a journal, and received the editors decision (Major Revision). The status changed to Under Review on August 30. If I fix them, he will be pleased to reconsider his decision. Well, the decision was <<"Revise for 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 I got minor revision in the first round of review. Coming to your question, a month at Pending Decision is a bit long, but we I sent a paper to Journal of Cleaner Production and finally got minor revision after 6months. The possible result of this review is acceptance of the manuscript, and the AE communicates the decision to the EiC for action. It all depends on the editor to adjudge the comments base on the merit of the paper. this status is not mentioned in Elsevier site! I'm confused about this statuses. It is slightly strange that the status 'Revision' is being displayed now although the submission system did not show this status during the previous rounds of review. Based on this, it may take about two-three weeks for this round of review and for the final decision. After the first review, it came back for a major revision. As the revision was not so difficult, I submitted the revised manuscript in the middle of August. What actually happens with the manuscript depends on the editor and editorial policy. Since the reviewer requires small changes (clear some introduction background, and correct grammar), I think it is most likely minor revision and the review time should be shorter than the first review. I recently received two very positive reviews requiring minor edits in the IEEE Access journal. It's been almost a month since the last submission, but the status has remained Pending Decision. My manuscript was first returned by a Springer journal for minor revisions. What could be the reason for the current status? Is the review process completed or are more 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. ' After completing internal checks, each new submission is assigned to a Section Editor. However, two months after submitting the revisions, the status of the submission is still "Editor Assigned". ' Now, after three weeks, the status date of the manuscript has changed, but the status remains 'Reviewers Assigned. user contributions licensed under CC BY-SA. After submitting the minor revision, the statutes changed to the pending editorial decision for 1 month. I submitted my manuscript to an SCI journal, and was asked to make some revisions. Your options 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. Either it can be accepted (after one more minor revision) or it can be rejected. I have a paper on an Elsevier journal with "accept, minor revision". I suppose that in most cases of minor revision, the revised manuscript will only be reviewed by the ADM or associate editor. I have received minor comments (only a few text corrections) from the referee who suggested major revision at the 1st review. In addition, the academic editor initially assigned to it was also changed. Then the status changed to “Decision in process”. Publish without revision, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication. It has been over two weeks, but the status is still displayed as ‘Awaiting Admin Processing. But 검색한 바에 따르면 저널에 따라 다르지만 보통 Major revision → Minor revision → Accept되는 경우가 제일 많다 고 하셔서 조금 안심을 했다. Anyway, as yours was a minor revision, you probably don’t have much What's the difference between a minor and major revision? Response: A minor revision often implies that there are a limited number of changes that are needed to improve the manuscript for publication. Where conflicting review reports are present, or where there are one or more recommendations for rejection, feedback from the academic editor is sought before a decision about I submit my manuscript to IEEE WCL on 4/14/2019 (Minor revision). During the peer review process your article will show a status of ‘Under Review’. I then resubmitted the paper a month later. After re-submission, the status changed from "under review" to "decision in process". 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 Recently I submitted minor revision to springer journal. But our paper status is Technical Check In Progress. The journal office will follow up with late reviewers and keep you informed if there are any delays. Most journals will try to catch this and either reject outright, or assign it to the same AE to handle. The fate of the manuscript can not be predicted for a I recently resubmitted a manuscript after making major revisions. Is it possible that after sending minor revisions my paper has gone for a fresh review again. After 4 months received a review report with minor revisions. I revised the paper accordingly and addressed the feedbacks. ’ the status will change and the manuscript move to the final review stage. The status of my paper shows "accepted". However, after reviewers completed their assignments, the authors do respond to I received a letter from the Editor stating that although my work is interesting and the results are correct, my paper contains typos, missing brackets, and punctuation marks. Bearing in mind the decision was minor revision. After 5 months I received a "Major revision". Decision Date: 14 April 2023 Under review: The paper is with reviewers for comment or waiting for the Action Editor’s decision. 审稿决定“Minor revision”就是著名的“小修“了。 这个审稿决定意味着你的论文几乎就被接受发表，但是审稿人的审稿意见中只要求作一些小的修改。这些小的修改通常可以很快完成（有时也有例外，有些名为小修也会让作者改得吐血）。 I have submitted my manuscript in one of the top journal of Elsevier. One reviewer suggested minor corrections and one reviewer suggested major corrections. 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. Commented Jun 17, This is different from checking a minor revision, which is often straightforward enough that it can jump the queue without unduly delaying other things. Just list it as what it is, under review. Even the best papers could sometimes receive a major revision or rejection after an initial minor revision request. A minor revision is close to a contract to publish the paper if certain changes are made. After resubmitting, its status changed to "Editor Assigned," "under review," and after about 7 days it became "Editor assigned" again. I think that under consideration may significate under review through several time steps according to the revision process. 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). Major revision을 받은 논문이 accept되는 비율 에 대해서도 궁금했는데 정확한 In consequence, peer review times do vary per journal. I submitted my manuscript to a journal. It roughly took around 19 days in total for this whole process. I have submitted my manuscript to a Springer journal. request minor or major revisions, or reject the paper due to unresolvable concerns. – Mohaqiq. After the submission of the second revision, the status was Under Review for 20 days. The current status is "under review" since July 23. If the paper is not with reviewers, the status should be 'with editor'. I did accordingly. In other cases, minor revisions can often involve some substantial work, and thus, there is a possibility (although typically small) that such a paper would not be subsequently accepted. 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". After about 80 days, I have received a 'major revisions' decision with the detailed comments of two reviewers. The decision was delayed, so I sent a 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. 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. For papers accepted after minor revision, the revised papers are often published without another full process of peer review. The top 2 journals in sociology are notorious for this. Of course, both could have been major, but the final possibility – that both were minor – is perhaps not "minor revision": I don't need to see the revised paper again, it's okay if the editor considers the comments sufficiently addressed/incorporated. On December 20, I submitted the revised article. It was updated to ‘Under Review’ on December 10, 2020, and has remained so till date. Under Review. 수정 후 게재(accept with minor revision)인 경우, 본문의 사소한 내용을 고친 뒤 별도의 심사 없이 논문이 Hello all, I have an article under review after a major revision with a journal. 2. ' However, after 15 days, it again changed to 'Reviewers Assigned. After agreeing to review, external peer reviewers typically have 10 days to submit their review. Then it will take probably one month to get your work accepted. However, I have heard nothing from the journal for 3 weeks, though I assumed I would receive a response in a few days. • The author is told that the manuscript has been reviewed very positively and the manuscript can be published if it is revised in response to the reviewers’ At the 1st review, the referees' have written positive statement. After another month, I got back the review, asking to work on minor revisions. After second revision, the submission’s status changed from "major revision" to "with editor". Moreover, careful revision for grammar and typos have been suggested. This list will guide your revision of the paper. After waiting 20 days for pending approval, the status now is reviewers invited. I submitted my manuscript to an Elsevier journal in January 2020. One reason to list your pending submissions can be to show what you have been working on in the last months, but it will not count as "achievement", even if you mention that it got an "accepted with major revisions". If the paper is not rejected, there are These microscale results were obtained under ideal conditions in existing literature, and yet our experiments are closed to the reality. This status also applies to second review rounds (revised version reviews). Revision. How it can affect the overall review process? Should I expect more delay and more chances of I received “minor revision” for my paper and resubmitted the revised manuscript. I sent the review reports addressing all the The review then continues from step 6 above. -1. Is it still with the associate editor or with the old reviewers. If it is taking long process of review time (more than 3 weeks) after minor revision then any revised decisions can be Common reasons for a ‘minor revisions’ decision. Can I send a email to AE? Meaning of awaiting final decision after awaiting reviewer scores The status “awaiting final decision after awaiting reviewer scores” means that the peer review has been completed and the reviewer comments have been sent back to the editorial office for assessment. After submitting the revised article for a week, a ADM was assigned and the status has changed to "awaiting reviewer invitation. 2주간 with editor로 있길래 에디터가 결정을 할 건가 싶었는데, under review로 상태가 바뀌었습니다. " I had submitted my paper to a reputed journal. Instances of this decision are also rather rare. 심사자 선정이 끝나고 심사자에게 논문이 전달된 상태. The journal clearly said that the paper was accepted, subject to minor amendments and even went on to mention tentative publication dates. Minor revisions will include formatting or writing suggestions and are typically issues you can easily address. In case of a Under review ; This manuscript status indicates that a paper has been pre-checked and is now being peer-reviewed. ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISION REVIEW • This decision means that a manuscript is acceptable for publication if some minor revisions can be made to improve the quality of the content and writing. " Does this mean that my manuscript needs to go through another round of review? After peer review, the editor will consider feedback from the reviewers and then make a decision about the article. Under review = The paper is being peer-reviewed. Recruiting new reviewers to evaluate a The status of my manuscript is currently "under review" after a minor revision and I had resubmitted the revision. Also, as this is the third revision, we assume the latest is a minor revision. Asking the author for any revision, re-opens the Editorial Manager so that the authors can upload a revised version. There were 3 different reviewers and they made very relevant comments that I found very useful. Pending decision = A first assessment will be made by the Academic Editor. "major revision": The revised paper will require a second round of reviews. Accept with minor revisions: Also known as conditional acceptance, this decision means that the paper requires minor changes for it to be accepted. The submission is waiting for you to complete the submission (or revision) process. Scenario 1: with editor/under editor evaluation >> awaiting reviewer selection >> under review If this is how the status had changed the first time you submitted the paper, then chances are that your paper is actually being sent for a re-review. After one week, the status changed to 'Reviewers Assigned,' and it remained so for one day. Then, I have made all the necessary modifications and My paper is "under peer review" after "accept with minor revision". If your paper is rejected before review due to being out of scope, the best way forward is to find a new journal for your work. I submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal. To date, the status is “under review”. But until now, 5/17, the status are still "awaiting decision". For all subsequent follow ups I received the following reply “the responsible editor already decided to recommend, but the decision by a 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. However, I just noticed that the status of my 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 After submitting the minor revision, the status changed to under review and pending approval. 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. However, expect a slightly longer wait at this time of the year due to the approaching 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 fresh review is sought. It usually takes around 48 hours. The AE will use judgment in re-engaging the reviewers to perform the minor review. The submission remains at this Minor revisions - the best you can hope for after the first round of review Major revisions - the decision we received in this case Reject – clearly, the one you want to avoid; Editors are most likely to write back to you after initial review and recommend either ‘minor revisions’ or ‘major revisions’ to your paper. I know it's typically a bad sign if the reviews as a whole take only a short time (for example, the paper has the "under review" status only for a few days). After the authors address the reviewer concerns, after a minor revision, the Academic Editor can still send the paper to another round of reviews due My article was submitted to a journal last year and has undergone three rounds of reviews. Even after minor reviews, it can take several weeks or even months for reviewers and editors to look at the paper again. The Associate Editor is usually a member of the PLOS Sustainability and Transformation Editorial Board, but occasionally a Is it common for a journal to reject a paper after previously accepting it? When a paper of mine was first reviewed, one of the reviewers was okay with the paper and the other one requested minor revisions. However, one of my article which was accepted with minor revision is now under "Editor Invited" status after the submission of revised version. The paper was accepted with minor revision (two reviewers both recommended 'minor revision'). On 4/26, the status on ScholarOne changed to awaiting decision. Publish after minor revision, appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of 이 논문의 경우 minor revision이기 때문에 대체로 까다롭지 않은 간단한 수정만해서 보내면 게재될 수 있을 것으로 생각된다. Months later I received a "Minor Revision". Step 10: Major Revision (MaR) of the Manuscript (45 days) After peer review and review by the Editorial Board, you will receive one of the following decisions: Accept: The manuscript is acceptable for publication in its current form. Read 4 answers by scientists with 1 recommendation from their colleagues to the question asked by Sanyam Sharma on Nov 21, 2022 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. But, I need your opinion about a journal whose review time is slow and reject your work after 2 years 3 months following the order : major revision -> minor revision -> major revision. Here, it sounds almost like they want a major revision (as @Enze MA said) in terms of the extent 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. 3 months later of submitting the revised (R1) version, I have received again the review report for Minor revision further required. I review many journal and conference papers frequently. For the first round, I recieved a major revision and for the next two rounds, I received minor revisions. Now the handling editor assigned to your manuscript will go through the After the second round of review, the editor provided some minor language revisions, and all three reviewers had no further comments. The comments were entirely new. yet it unfortunately does happen. status of revised manuscript "Under review" even after 40 days This is because the editor might not send out a manuscript with minor revisions for a re-review. My case report, which was edited by Editage, received a minor revision request by a journal. All of the sudden the statues changed to the revised version review from yesterday. ? active (under review), discuss, withdrawn, rejected, minor revision, major revision, accepted, no show, published. No, retracting after reviews is not ethical. For 3-4 days, the status of my manuscript status was showing to be Editor Assigned and after that status changed to Recently I submitted minor revision to springer journal. After one day of submission, status was ‘Awaiting Decision’; but now after 10 days, status change into ‘Awaiting reviewer selection’. nekuzxi ubapz dbdqpt ztouj vgzwqia iuff gkidb tzd mvd mxkvr