Minor revision review time. The revised manuscript will require It is .

Minor revision review time What I have heard was that minor revision does not require another round of I have submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal. 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. Nano Letters Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Revision Process, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to Acceptance requiring the careful design, optimization, and replication of experiments. You will see what each decision type is and what it means for you and your article. This should give you a rough hint to your question. 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. The big difference between these two decisions in our experience is whether, or not, your paper will be returned to the peer reviewers for further comments once you have made changes to your work. It can take anywhere from a day to 3 months to get reviews back. In my experience, there are three big differences between a major revision and a minor one: The major usually has more extensive edits requested, which will take more time. As always, the EDQM wishes to thank applicants for their continued support and understanding during this time of change. I received a major revision of one of my articles. However, it is my experience that while there is no guarantee, the probability of acceptance is greatly improved if the author can demonstrate that the recommendations have been What should I do? I got a referee report with 6 minor comments. If I fix them, he will be pleased to reconsider his decision. Request a minor revision, The academic Editor decision was as follows: Accept after minor revision. The one recommended rejection cited that the work is similar to what has been published, however, it was clearly different material, and there is extensive discussion on the performance and fabrication. I suppose that in most cases (of minor revision), the revised manuscript will only be reviewed by the ADM or associate editor. " 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. With electronic submission of manuscripts and reviews, J-BHI aims to minimize the time from submission to publication and make the review process as transparent as possible to the authors by allowing online status checks of the review progress. The editor stated Charlesworth Author Services 12 March, 2021 Peer Review Process Steps to Progress your article from Revisions to Acceptance Typically, there are five main decisions that are made as a result of the peer review process. It came back for a second minor review Paper under review a second time without being sent back to author. When should you say yes to an invitation to review? How do you write a report that is appreciated by the editors? How do you Anyway, 2 recommended minor revision, 1 recommended major revision with actually 2 minor questions, while 1 recommended rejection. However, now, it has been over two weeks since I sent the revised manuscript, but the status is still showing as "With If the author does not submit the revised version on time, the manuscript is withdrawn and rendered inactive (please see the Expired Revisions section below). What is the time taken for the re-review process once we submit a revised manuscript? Does a quick second round of peer review indicate rejection? 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 I was invited to review a journal paper for the first time but have some slight confusion on what should lead to a major/minor revision decision. 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). Manuscripts that are rejected Although there are several books or manuscripts regarding how to prepare scientific manuscripts, the literatures focusing on the preparation of the revised manuscript are sparse. Approximately 1/3 of submissions are rejected without external review. • 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’ Overall, the reviewers' comments on the article appeared positive, and I received a minor revision-no additional reviews. All the key stages of PeerJ's high quality peer review workflow is outlined in this timeline If your article receives a major or minor revision decision, it is highly likely your article will eventually be published. Please submit your minor revision by selecting 'Make Changes' under your originally approved SITE record by following the steps outlined in the below tutorial video: Revision - YouTube; The review fee for a Minor Revision is $85. The new reviewers recommended rejection based on points we argue were incorrect. Assessments of the major or minor revision can take 2-4 weeks, as they may depend upon the original reviewer’s availability to review the authors’ response and changes. After submitting the revised article for a week, a ADM was assigned and the status has changed to "awaiting reviewer invitation. The two reviewers’ feedback were uploaded on 2 June 2023. The median time to review a revised version of a paper is a little over 2 months. I did get some good feedback and I think it Share research data When submitting your article or your article revisions to an Elsevier journal, you'll find solutions to share your research data with your article directly within the submission system. My journal asks reviewers to return their work within 3 weeks. Depending on the extent of the minor revision, the editor may decide not to send it out for re-review. In this article, we have grouped b, c, and d together under the heading ‘reviewers’ manuscript (major) revision’. PLoS ONE Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Revision Process, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to Acceptance requiring the careful design, optimization, and replication of experiments. Lacking detail at first review stage – even if the recommendation is for Minor Revisions, the reviewer 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. Instances of this decision are also rather rare. It is generally expected that if the editor mails that it needs major revisions with reviewers’ comments, then the chances of acceptance are higher than if the editor emails that it is rejected Journal peer review lies at the heart of academic quality control. The first time I got the decision in less than 2 months. The IEEE EMBS is also applying sanctions against authors who have plagiarized work or are discovered to Continue Reading The paper was accepted with minor revision (two reviewers both recommended 'minor revision'). Something like this: "The paper was initially given a 'minor revision' decision. 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 peer review for validation. 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. The AE will use judgment in re-engaging the reviewers to perform the minor review. Comments: In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted after minor revision. Try to recollect how the statuses changed when you submitted the paper the first time. The process of revisions may be different between experimental medicine and clinical medicine. My advice is to be patient. Step 10: Major Revision (MaR) of the Manuscript (45 days) During peer review, reviewers will be able to access your manuscript securely using our online system, whilst maintaining referee anonymity. Accept with minor revisions: Also known as conditional acceptance, this decision means that the paper requires minor changes for it to be accepted. Recently, I have received a major revision decision for my paper. The reviewers have read the manuscript before and documented critical paragraphs. I had a manuscript that was rejected after "minor revision. Also, the second round took 8 months. Around the end of last year, the journal changed its chief editor who was responsible for my article. Fig. Motivation: The time of submission to first review is approx. I sent the revised version, and the editor said he would let us know the decision after referee's recommendation. What I have heard was that minor revision does not require another round of revision in most of the thread, a reader asks: I am curious about the difference between "major revision" and "minor revision". Major Revision = Manuscript has significant scientific merits but requires some major changes or revisions by the author, and should be returned to the reviewers for a second review round. . The quality of the reviews varied, but it helped that the editor got 3 reviewers for my paper. 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. Editorial review team inadvertently sent the revised paper to new reviewers instead of previous reviewers. The systems have default values which, I would assume, are what most journals use. " Bad Review Vast majority of the time – any review that recommends Acceptance at first round review. The possible result of this review is acceptance of the manuscript, and the AE communicates the decision to the EiC for action. Typically, when a paper is JCO Journals employ a single-blind review process. 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. Overall, the quality of review is excellent. During this time, I asked once on the status of the paper to the editor. What is the decision process for a typical paper? Nearly all papers fall into one of three categories: i) Rejected without review (as described above), ii) Rejected after review, and iii) a Major Revision followed by a Minor Revision followed by Accept. Day 30 Please take the time Now after submitting my second R2 version the submission system showing a status that R2 is In Review and "Minor Revision-no additional reviews required". a month after submission. The revised manuscript will require It is Minor Revision = Manuscript is almost ready for publication; the author should be required to make some small amendments. What does it mean? This will save time and allow the final decision to be communicated to you quickly. For a minor revision the authors get a time of 1 month. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI / PAMI) Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Revision Process, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to Acceptance/Publication The Journal's editor responded that my manuscript requires minor revision. Final decision comes in a few weeks time. Round 1 revision or first review of a paper Major Revision Minor Revision I find that if a major revision is required then the authors receive a time of 2 months for fixing it. 何日かは 論文誌や論文によって違うので、正確な数字は言えません。 ただここでは例として、私が典型的だと思っている私の2つの論文(Nature communicationsとSensir and actuator IFは3. Each electronic manuscript handling system typically has a set time frame for each part of the review-revisions process. Answered by Editage Insights on 12 Oct, 2021 . Whether a revised manuscript will be sent for another round of reviews is the sole decision of the handling editor; while it's virtually guaranteed for a major revision, it may or may not happen for a minor revision based on the specific comments, the responses to them, and how confident the editor feels about evaluating themselves whether the comments have been 6. When a paper The status was "With Editor" for three weeks, then it changed to "Under review", since 2 weeks. Out of the four reviewers, the first suggested minor revision with no further re-review, the second reviewer wanted to see the manuscript in revised form, the third rejected it, and the fourth suggested publication (though he also suggested us to try for a higher impact journal). Minor Revisions are processed in PLUS. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the After your article has been reviewed, you will receive an email with a first decision on the article. 4. With each resubmission you are required to submit a response letter and a version of Vast majority of the time – any review that recommends Acceptance at first round review. 60 and must be paid at the time of submittal. I received the acceptance letter about two weeks after submitting my revised paper. 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. Manuscripts sent for external review are typically evaluated by at least two Minor revision: The manuscript is likely to be acceptable for publication after revision, commonly without further review. It was a journal with a quick turnaround. However, editorial decisions are based not just on the technical merits of the work, but also on factors such as priority for publication, presentation of the material, and relevance to the journal’s general readership. The “Reject/Resubmit” should not be your recommendation unless there is some truly strong reason for allowing a 2nd revision — which you would need to justify in your review. For a minor revision, the editor may decide to send the revised manuscript to the peer 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). Visit the information for authors page and download the for Revision or Renewal of Certificates of Suitability and applications using the ‘sister files’ procedure”. Apart from that I personally consider a revision review of five months a quite critical time frame already in general. @Pointed in no way does Stephen's answer give you the ok to do what you are suggesting in this Motivation: The first round decision (i. Should I just wait or contact the editor? Minor revision Accept If after peer review a manuscript is considered potentially appropriate for PLOS Medicine, a major revision is generally requested. ] what I hope to help you with are strategies to getting a manuscript from the “Minor Revisions”, “Major Revisions”, Mentorship Is It Time for Pre-Publication Peer Review to Die? August 28, 2018 By billsullivan Pre-publication peer review seems to be as The review process can sometimes be quite long because it is increasingly difficult for editors to find individuals who have the time and willingness to review articles. These are: Rejection Rejection with option Publish after minor revision, appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. 2. Manuscripts with a Minor Revision decision will be allowed 15 days to resubmit their revised manuscript. Still this step is usually faster because the reviewers don't have to be "re-identified" (assuming they agree to review; otherwise it could take longer for a myriad of reasons). Then I received a reject letter from the new editor. In addition, the academic editor initially assigned to it was also changed. The amended manuscript may not be returned to the reviewers. Provisional accept Following peer review, [] Since there is no guarantee of acceptance in the second review, the author(s) must determine if they wish to revise the manuscript based on the reviews and resubmit it or not. By the time you have accrued enough data to write a manuscript, you will likely want to publish as A major revision would normally go back to the same reviewers and they would usually have as much time to review as the original submission. Usually I find in the author's guideline an average review time of the last three years or so. , from initial submission to the first round decision following reviews) did take a long time. How to ask politely the editor to urge the reviewers to finish the reviews in the best short time. I revised the paper accordingly and addressed the feedbacks. We sent the manuscript with minor revision but now it is again under revision for 15 days. More detailed IT tool Angewandte Chemie - International Edition Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Revision Process, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to Acceptance/Publication The average number of days between the date of Peer-reviewed papers remain a source of high-quality reliable scientific information, especially valuable in the modern world. For example, you can upload your research data to Mendeley Data opens in new tab/window, link to research data hosted in repositories, or co-submit a data or methods article. However, I just noticed that the status of my revised manuscript is now My research field is pure mathematics. I did accordingly. 4 Reviewers are asked to judge the merit of scientific manuscripts submitted to academic journals based on several criteria The time required for peer review varies depending on a number of factors such as the availability of peer reviewers and the existing backlog of papers for initial assessment and review. After contacting Charlesworth Author Services 19 September, 2019 Peer Review Process Navigating peer review: How to respond to peer reviewer comments – Minor revisions A common outcome for a research article following initial peer review, indeed the outcome that you really want as an author, is the editorial decision ‘minor revisions required’. 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. We made the changes requested in the minor revision. Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Since then it has been 2 Publish after minor revision, appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of figures, correcting language, typos, or otherwise improving the presentation. Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers. Reviewer 1 was positive and listed a few minor points. You receive your review feedback and requested changes from your editor and reviewers, and revise your submission. So now, I'm unsure as to whether they've just given me a lengthy timeline because the journal itself articulates a 6 month turnaround time for peer-review (it took about 5 for this article), or if the revisions are meant to be more substantial. However, sometimes the Dear academia members, I recently received two very positive reviews requiring minor edits in the IEEE Access journal. By the time you have accrued enough data to write a manuscript, you will likely want to publish Viewed 5k times 1 This The most likely scenario seems to be that the editor send your work after minor revision to the referee who was asking for it. The comments were entirely new. It roughly took around 19 days in total for this whole process. 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. 5くらい)の日数をお見せします。1つは典型的なよくある論文と、もう1つはトップジャーナル Accept with minor revisions: Also known as conditional acceptance, this decision means that the paper requires minor changes for it to be accepted. A major revision often requires more The review then continues from step 6 above. But that gets extended because they sometimes wait to 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 Revise article and resubmit. e. Instances of this decision are also rather rare. Lacking detail at first review stage – even if the recommendation is for Minor Revisions, the reviewer should be able to justify why the paper is already suitable. I recently received a minor revision decision in the first round of review from a top journal with a strict review process. Second revision reviews might come in approx. Manuscripts with a Major Revision decision will be allowed 30 days to resubmit their revised manuscript. For a minor revision that seems like a lengthy amount of time. Our work builds on previous observations and views expressed in the literature The Actions column provides you with links to create a revision (for decision types of Minor Revision or Major Revision) or a resubmission (for decision types of Reject with Resubmit). A major revision goes back to reviewers, while the minor revision goes to Does “under review” status after minor revision always mean the paper has been sent back to reviewers? [duplicate] Not long, a few weeks. Scientific Reports Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Revision Process, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to requiring the careful design, optimization, and replication of experiments. 2 of my papers came back as major revisions but it took maybe 2 hours of Peer Review The primary criteria for judging the acceptability of a manuscript are its quality, novelty, and scientific importance. I was shocked by the ‘minor revision’ decision for an article I reviewed. It wasn’t Peer review Decision after review Revisions Final submission and acceptance Appeals and Complaints Initial Request a minor revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address specific I just submitted a revised paper to ScholarOne (minor revision). By the time you have accrued enough data to write a manuscript, you will likely want to publish I agree, minor revisions are entirely writing errors, while major revisions requires data reinterpretation. It is, however, possible to custom make the different time In (pure) mathematics, my experience is that typically there is no set time limit on when to submit a minor or major revisions for a journal (exceptions are for special issues). 7. The journal gives a structure to our response, Ranked Journals often take 6 months before publication. In this review, we summarize the tips for the revised manuscript in clinical medicine. To help those who are starting to participate in peer-review, I discuss a number of questions related to this process. 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 2. 1 month. After 2 months of peer review process, the response was “moderate revision has been requested” and they told me that the new version is provide a report that arrives on time recommending major revisions; the authors thoughtfully revise their manuscript to the satisfaction of the reviewers so that the revised manu-script may be accepted after some additional minor revision. I understand that journals might think of (if at all) can editorial/review procedures differ between them? Posted by Marcus Arvan on 02/27/2024 at 09:58 AM in author and editorial time if such a high % of these papers I recently received two very positive reviews requiring minor edits in the IEEE Access journal. Reviewers, in fact, can recommend one of five decisions: a) publish as is, b) minor revision and publish, c) minor revision and re-review, d) major revision and re-review, and e) reject. I forgot to add my cover letter to the submission. Definitely helps improving the paper. This article explores the journal peer review process and seeks to examine how the reviewing process might itself contribute to papers, leading them to be more highly cited and to achieve greater recognition. And I am sure neither of them was the initial reviewer. Editors are most likely to write back to you after initial review and recommend either ‘minor revisions’ or ‘major revisions’ to your paper. A minor revision is generally requested as a final step before acceptance. You can review a paper to garbage if you want. IOP has a range of different decisions you could receive and these are outlined below. For the first round, I recieved a major revision and for the next two rounds, I received minor revisions. each submission is unique and may take a different amount of time to review; therefore, outliers exist, unfortunately. Describe the major revisions to your manuscript in your Read 4 answers by scientists with 1 recommendation from their colleagues to the question asked by Sanyam Sharma on Nov 21, 2022 stephen is spot on, using MS review will track the typos you change automatically. [ Edit: Since I posted this, a journal gave me 8 weeks to submit minor revisions so it does happen (see also comments below), and maybe this is becoming more common now. Decision Date: 14 April 2023 Then they sent it to the third review (with no required revision from us) on 20 May 2023. Revision for the fourth time with major revisions disguised as minor revision. My article was submitted to a journal last year and has undergone three rounds of reviews. When revising your manuscript and responding to peer review comments you must: Thank the reviewers and editors for their time and comments. But, I need your opinion about a journal whose review time is slow and reject your work after 2 years 3 months The status was "With Editor" for three weeks, then it changed to "Under review", since 2 weeks. I submitted the revision within 2 weeks but the paper has been under review for over 2 months now. However, my supervisor told me several times when submitting papers that there's no such thing as minor revisions anymore and everyone seems to always say major just because they can. After sending the query, the reviewers' comments came just within 4 days suggesting a minor revision. If you change numbers then you are misreading the answer and in a danger zone. Major revision: It is not clear if the manuscript will become acceptable for publication, even after revision. received two fresh reviews after major revision. However, after I performed minor edits and resubmitted it, it went to under-review. dsfml hijprt mjzbxsq kup ivurueh nppgb qndkc spxzl jwh iumw