- Translation
Understanding the Switch from "Under Review" to "Reviewers Assigned"
By charlesworth author services.
Submitting a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal is a pivotal moment for any author or researcher. However, this can be a daunting task, often accompanied by confusion and uncertainty. One of the most perplexing occurrences is when the status of a manuscript changes from "under review" to "reviewers assigned," leaving authors questioning the implications of this shift.
Changing Manuscript Status
Although peer review can be a lengthy process, stretching over months, authors eagerly anticipate updates on the status of their manuscript . Despite journals offering tracking systems, the information provided may be sporadic or subject to frequent changes, leaving authors puzzled.
Decoding Status Updates
Understanding the significance of manuscript statuses is crucial. 'Reviewers assigned' indicates that experts have been sent an invitation to evaluate your paper, while 'under review' suggests that your manuscript is actively being assessed by reviewers.
So, why the sudden shift from 'under review' to 'reviewers assigned'? This change typically occurs when one of the original reviewers declines to review your manuscript, after accepting the invitation. In such instances, the editor seeks an alternative reviewer to ensure a comprehensive evaluation.
However, this change should not be cause for alarm. It is a common occurrence that arises from various circumstances.
Reasons for Reviewer Changes
There could be several reasons why a peer reviewer for your manuscript might be changed during the review process:
1. Conflict of interest:
If the initially assigned reviewer realises that they have a potential conflict of interest, such as a close professional or personal relationship with the authors or a competing interest in the research topic, they may recuse themselves. In such cases, the journal will assign a different reviewer.
2. Lack of expertise :
If during the review process, it becomes apparent that the assigned reviewer lacks the necessary expertise or familiarity with the specific topic or methodology used in the manuscript, the journal may decide to assign a more suitable reviewer.
3. Quality concerns :
If the journal editors are not satisfied with the quality or thoroughness of the review provided by the assigned reviewer, they may opt to replace that reviewer with someone else to ensure a more comprehensive and constructive review.
4. Failure to meet deadlines:
Reviewers are typically given a deadline to complete their review. Sometimes, reviewers may become unavailable due to unforeseen circumstances, such as illness, heavy workload, or other commitments. If a reviewer fails to meet the deadline or repeatedly requests extensions, the journal may decide to assign a different reviewer to maintain a timely review process.
5. Editorial policies or practices:
Some journals may have policies or practices in place that require rotating or changing reviewers periodically, even if there are no specific concerns with the initial reviewer's performance.
In most cases, the journal’s editorial office will communicate with you about the change in the reviewer and may explain the decision, when enquired about the journal status. The goal is to ensure a fair, thorough, and timely review process for your manuscript.
It is natural for authors to feel unsettled by changes in manuscript status, but rest assured, such transitions are common occurrences and not necessarily cause for concern. Once the requisite number of reviewers accept the invitation, your manuscript will likely revert to the 'under review' status, signalling the continuation of the evaluation process.
While changes in manuscript status may initially raise questions, understanding the underlying reasons can offer clarity and reassurance to authors. By understanding the nature of the peer review process and referring to available resources, authors can ease their publication journey with resilience and determination. Remember, the fluctuations in your manuscript status do not reflect your work's quality but rather testify the meticulous nature of the review process.
Scientific Editing Services
Sign up – stay updated.
We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
After submitting
In this section:
- NEW! Featured Author Support
- Tracking your submission
- My paper has been accepted – what next?
- Appeals and rebuttals
- BMJ Article Transfer Service
- Abstracting and indexing
- Archiving, permissions and copyright
- Article metrics and alerts
- Correction and retraction policies
- Publication embargo
- Rapid responses
The review process
1. Awaiting Editorial Production Assistant Processing
The Editorial Production Assistant will carry out quality checks on your article at which point you may need to provide further information before your article is sent for Peer Review.
2. Awaiting Editor Assignment:
Your article has passed initial quality checks by the Editorial Production Assistant and is in the process of being assigned to an appropriate Editor who will evaluate your article for scope, quality, and fit for the journal. Papers that do not meet these criteria will be rejected.
3. Awaiting Reviewer Selection
Your article meets the Journal’s scope and has been approved for peer review. The Editorial Team are in the process of finding suitable external expert reviewers that are available to review your article. Your article may also be sent to relevant Associate Editor’s for internal review. For most articles, a minimum of two reviews are required. Articles can be sent to multiple prospective reviewers before the required number are secured.
4. Peer Review in Progress
Your article has secured the minimum number of required reviewers. Peer reviewers are given 2 weeks to submit their review of your article. On the occasion that a reviewer withdraws from the process, the Editorial Team will begin the reviewer selection process again.
5. Awaiting Editor Decision
Your article has now received the minimum number of reviews required to make a decision. The Editor will take into account the expert reviewers’ opinions to make an informed decision of accept, reject or revise.
6. In Production
Your article has been accepted and you will receive an email to confirm. Your article will move through the final quality checks and in to Production where it will be processed for publication. You will be emailed by the Production Editor with a timeline and be provided with a link to a platform called Publishing at Work where you can continue to track your article’s progress. More information about the Production process can be found here .
[email protected]
Submitted my paper. Now what?
Feb 18, 2022 | Scholarly publishing
There is something of an air of mystery as to what actually happens to your manuscript once you’ve pressed that “submit” button. It seemingly goes off into cyberspace and you are left playing the waiting game.
These days, if you’ve submitted to a journal via an online submission system, you will be able to track its progress to some extent as you will generally be able to see what stage it’s at. The names of these stages can, however, seem fairly vague and almost worse than no information at all.
So let’s translate them. There are many different submission systems and the stages a manuscript goes through during peer review does differ system to system (and, indeed, journal to journal), so for the purposes of this post we’re going to look at the most common stages of the most common submission site: ScholarOne (formally Manuscript Central).
First Steps
Initially your manuscript will go through stages such as “Awaiting Admin Checklist” and/or “Awaiting Editor Assignment” depending on how new submissions are initially checked on the journal. These stages tend to be moved through fairly swiftly as they are just the editorial team checking that your submission is suitable for peer review and then deciding which of the editors will be responsible for it during the process.
Awaiting Reviewer Selection
This is the first stage of the peer-review process and your manuscript will be here until the assigned Editor has selected some suitable experts to invite to review.
Once enough reviewers have been selected, the manuscript will move on to the next stage. If only one reviewer agrees to review and all the others decline the invitation, however, your manuscript may well return to this stage while the Editor selects more. So if you log in to check on progress several weeks after submission and find your manuscript at this stage, it doesn’t necessarily mean that no action has been taken.
Awaiting Reviewer Invitation
This means that potential reviewers have been selected, but have yet to be invited. Manuscripts quite often return to this stage if not enough of the invited reviewers accepted the invitation so further invitations need to be sent. It’s quite common for editors to select a lot of reviewers, but only invite a few at a time.
Awaiting Reviewer Assignment
This rather ambiguous stage is when reviewers have been invited, but we are waiting for the required number to agree to review. In other words, at this point, the ball is squarely in the reviewers’ court!
In an ideal world, enough of the invited reviewers will agree to review and your manuscript will move on to the next stage. In reality, however, it is quite normal for invited reviewers to be unavailable and for your manuscript to return to one of the earlier stages a couple of times.
Awaiting Reviewer Scores
This is the stage that the editorial team will be striving to get your manuscript to as swiftly as possible. If your manuscript is at this stage, then enough experts have agreed to read and evaluate it and we just need to wait for the reviewers to return their comments so that a decision can be taken.
Once through this stage, your manuscript will move on to a stage such as “Awaiting Recommendation” and/or “Awaiting Decision” and it generally won’t be long before a decision is sent to you.
So That’s It?
That’s it. There are, of course, many things that can cause delays to the process, but the majority of manuscripts move from one stage to the next fairly swiftly.
- Company information and news
- Scholarly publishing
- Testimonials
- Company Statements
- Privacy Notice
- Terms & Conditions
- Modern Slavery Statement
- Equality, Diversity & Inclusion
- Anti-Bribery Statement
- Jamia Millia Islamia
What does "awaiting reviewer scores" means after revision?
Most recent answer.
Get help with your research
Join ResearchGate to ask questions, get input, and advance your work.
All Answers (15)
Similar questions and discussions
- Asked 24 June 2023
- Asked 23 July 2021
- Asked 19 November 2020
- Asked 3 July 2022
- Asked 9 August 2023
- Asked 18 December 2023
- Asked 28 February 2022
- Asked 13 March 2022
- Asked 1 June 2020
Related Publications
- Recruit researchers
- Join for free
- Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up
No recent searches
Popular Articles
Sorry! nothing found for
How can I check the status of my submitted paper?
Modified on Wed, 7 Aug at 1:03 PM
To check the status of your submission in our system, log into your ScholarOne Manuscripts account, and click on “Author.” Under the Author Dashboard Section, click on “Submitted Manuscripts.”
Please note that the following definitions generally apply to most journals. Each journal follows its own workflow, so some terms may not apply. Please contact the journal's editorial office for clarification.
| | |
| | This means the author has successfully submitted and approved the manuscript. After this, the manuscript usually goes through a formatting check by the journal staff before it is assigned to an editor. |
| | Your submission is waiting for initial review by the editorial office. This may involve checking that the submission is within the journal's scope and adheres to submission guidelines. |
| Multiple editors may be assigned to your submission, depending on the journal's workflow. This status typically means your manuscript is awaiting assignment to an editor after the initial review of the submission. Depending on the journal's workflow, this status could also indicate when the editorial office determines if your submission is eligible for peer review. This may not apply. | |
| | It means the manuscript has been assigned to an editor and is waiting for the editor to agree to evaluate the manuscript. This may not apply. |
| This indicates that an editor has agreed to evaluate the manuscript, and the assignment is in their editorial queue. At this stage, the editor may complete their own manuscript screening and determine if it is suitable for peer review. If the manuscript does not match the journal's scope or does not meet the journal's standards, it may be returned without review or be desk rejected. | |
| If the manuscript is suitable for peer review, this step indicates that the editor is searching for viable peer reviewers. When the system shows the status “Reviewer invited,” it means that invitations have been sent out to reviewers, but they have not yet accepted the invitation. Sometimes, the tracking system may show the “Reviewer Invited” status for some time and then move back to “With Editor.” This probably means that the peer reviewers have declined the invitations, and the editor will now have to look for other reviewers. Sage Journals usually have a required minimum of two external reviews. | |
| This status means that the manuscript is under peer review. Peer review is an honorary service that requires detailed scrutiny and evaluation of the manuscript and therefore takes time. The amount of time a manuscript is in review depends on reviewer availability. Please note that other statuses may fall under this umbrella, such as "Awaiting Reviewer Scores." | |
| This status indicates that all peer reviews are completed and have been received by the editorial office. Sometimes, the editor, after going through the reviews, might feel that an additional review is required. In such cases, the status might return to “Under Review.” Once the additional review is completed, the status will return to “Required Reviews Complete.” | |
| This means that the editor is now determining a decision based on the peer reviewer's comments and their own assessment. The editor may consult the editorial board or other editorial office members if required. Once this status shows up, the author is generally informed of the editorial decision shortly afterward. |
| This indicates that a decision was made and a revision has been requested. The submission is now with the author. The author is usually given a deadline of a few weeks to a few months; this may be extended upon request, for more information see Additionally, some journals ask the author to submit a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments with their revised manuscript. | |
| This indicates that the author has submitted the revised document (and a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments, if required). The document is now awaiting a check by the journal's editorial office. | |
| It shows that the author has clicked on an action link indicating that they do not wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript. In other words, the author is not ready to make the revisions suggested and would like to withdraw their paper. This may not apply. | |
| | If submitted to a subscription journal, a completed contributor form is required after the manuscript has been accepted. Locate the manuscript and complete the form. If you have any questions, contact the editorial office. |
Was this article helpful?
That’s Great!
Thank you for your feedback
Sorry! We couldn't be helpful
Let us know how can we improve this article! *
Feedback sent
We appreciate your effort and will try to fix the article
Verified Reviews - IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS
Poloz 2023-05-29
2022/10/13 submit, Awaiting AE Assignment 2022/10/17 Status: Awaiting Reviewer Selection 2022/11/4 Status: Under review 2023/2/12 Status: Major Revision 2023/3/27 Major revision submission, Status: Awaiting Reviewer Invitation 2023/3/19 Status: Under review 2023/5/26 Status: Accept The review process took a long time, a total of 225 days, but finally everything is settled before graduation!
D华丽 2023-04-17
2023/02/18 Submission 2023/05/18 Major Revision 2023/07 A revision has been submitted, under review for approximately one week after submission.
zengyue 2023-01-14
2022.03.27 Submit the paper; 2022.08.17 Return for major revisions (65 review comments, quite intense, but the initial submission indeed had these issues); 2022.09.29 Submit the revised version for major revisions; 2022.11.18 Return for major revisions (only 6 comments left from one reviewer, very responsible reviewer); 2022.12.01 Submit the revised version for major revisions; 2023.01.11 Accepted! Happy, lalala! Overall evaluation: TCOM is indeed a high-quality top journal, and the reviewers are very diligent and responsible; the raised questions are all reasonable; thanks to all the reviewers! I recommend everyone to submit their papers!
Poloz 2023-01-12
Ah, it's so difficult. It's really frustrating to wait for such a long time and get rejected. My first trial hasn't come out yet. What are you planning to do next, OP?
Kevin 2023-01-10
2023.01.10 REJECT I don't know how to start making changes...
Kevin 2023-01-04
Unfortunately, it coincided with the overseas Christmas and New Year holidays, and as of now, I have not received a decision. Let's wait patiently~
Kevin 2022-12-30
2022.12.30 Awaiting Editor Decision. The quality of the new year depends on the editor's decision.
风封峰 2022-12-23
Submitted on 3.10, rejected on 6.27. Re-submitted after revision on 7.23, major revision on 10.13. Submitted on 11.24, accepted on 12.22. Took more than 9 months.
Kevin 2022-12-19
The review process of a journal is indeed very agonizing~ It has been so long, and there is still no sign of progress. I can only patiently wait.
Poloz 2022-11-26
Based on experience, the first review should take about two months. If lucky, the reviewers respond quickly and the editors handle it promptly, and the first review result can be obtained in less than two months. If luck is not so good, the reviewers may wait until the deadline to give their comments, and the editors may also wait until the deadline to reply, so it is possible for it to take three months ?.
WWTkh 2022-11-22
May I ask how long the second "under review" will last, and is it necessary to find a new reviewer?
Kevin 2022-11-21
Finding a reviewer takes a really long time, huh~ hh How long does the formal review process take?
Aptom 2022-11-20
2022.4.18 submitted 2022.8.8 major revision 2022.9.29 resubmitted 2022.11.14 accepted Translated into English: 2022.4.18 submitted 2022.8.8 major revision 2022.9.29 resubmitted 2022.11.14 accepted
Poloz 2022-11-18
It is very likely that the reviewer has not been available. It has been almost two months, and the editor had to urge them before the reviewer finally responded. ?
Kevin 2022-11-11
2022.11.11 Under Review, it's unbelievable that it has just entered the review stage now~ So incredible, haha.
Kevin 2022-11-08
Why is it that my submission has been two months and still "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment"... Does it mean that they haven't found any reviewers yet?
Poloz 2022-10-17
2022/10/17 Status: Awaiting Reviewer Selection 2022/11/4 Status: Under review
2022/10/17 Awaiting Reviewer Selection
Kevin 2022-10-13
It has been a month since submission, and it has been "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" all along. Does it mean the manuscript is already under review? Hopefully, good luck! Keep updating!
Poloz 2022-10-13
The following text translated into English is: "Veteran communication journal. 2022/10/13 submit, Awaiting AE Assignment 2022/10/17 Status: Awaiting Reviewer Selection 2022/11/4 Status: Under review 2023/2/12 Status: Major Revision 2023/3/27 Major revision submission, Status: Awaiting Reviewer Invitation 2023/3/19 Status: Under review 2023/5/26 Status: Accept!"
Kevin 2022-09-29
As of now, it has not entered the review stage yet~
jxgsd 2022-08-22
You can give it a try. After all, the first time is due to direction reasons.
JCCJ 2022-08-19
August 18th, awaiting editor decision.
jxgsd 2022-07-25
In other words, it means that only rejection is possible, but you can submit again. If the paper is rejected by the current journal, you need to upload the revised manuscript and a response letter. This is explained in the "Information for authors" section.
The journals TCOM and TWC do not have the option of resubmission after rejection. They only reject submissions directly. However, these two journals allow for a particular situation: if your manuscript has been rejected only once (including both this journal and other journals), then you can submit again. In other words, if you have not submitted to any other journal and your submission to TCOM has been rejected, TCOM allows you to revise the manuscript and submit it along with a response letter.
宇宙系浪漫 2022-07-22
Hello~ May I ask if it is a rejection with the option to resubmit, or just a rejection without the possibility of resubmission?
jxgsd 2022-07-21
I submitted another article at the beginning of March and encountered the same editor as last time. The processing speed was very fast. The first review result came out in 55 days and it was rejected. After making revisions for one month, I resubmitted it and it was accepted after 50 days. It took more than 5 months in total.
JCCJ 2022-07-02
July 2nd Under Review
DMDLI 2022-06-22
Submitted in November last year, received the first review notice in February this year. Revised in April, received minor revisions in June, and then received the acceptance notification shortly after submission. It took approximately 8 months from submission to acceptance.
JCCJ 2022-06-16
Submitted on March 31st. Currently still awaiting reviewer assignment. Hoping for good luck.
Discover Peeref hubs
Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.
Find the ideal target journal for your manuscript
Explore over 38,000 international journals covering a vast array of academic fields.
Stack Exchange Network
Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Q&A for work
Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.
What does the status "Waiting for reviewer assignment" mean? [duplicate]
I submitted my revised manuscript to a mathematical journal since 12-04-2017. The status is "Waiting for reviewer assignment" since 24-4-2017. What does it mean? Have the reviewers started working on my manuscript yet?.
- peer-review
- 2 I don't understand what is 'unclear' here. It means that the reviewers have not been assigned yet. The invitations have been sent (probably in multiple rounds), but the reviewers have not yet agreed to review the manuscript. – Coder Commented Sep 20, 2017 at 13:29
It typically means that the paper has been received, has been put in the work queue of the editor, but the editor has not assigned reviewers. Or (in one system I know of), that the editor has not assigned the necessary number of reviewers. That could be because the system requires four reviewers, but the editor has only gotten the commitment from three people to review the paper. (Which the editor may deem enough, and so the status will never change until the three reviews have been received.) Or that the editor has asked four people, but only three have accepted. (Which again, the editor may deem sufficient.) Or that the paper has been put in the editor's queue but he has not done anything with it so far.
In other words, the status may mean that the editor is asleep at the wheel, or it may not. You can't draw any inferences just from the status.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged peer-review .
- Featured on Meta
- Site maintenance - Mon, Sept 16 2024, 21:00 UTC to Tue, Sept 17 2024, 2:00...
- User activation: Learnings and opportunities
- Join Stack Overflow’s CEO and me for the first Stack IRL Community Event in...
Hot Network Questions
- Can Cantrip Connection be used with innate cantrips?
- Tire schrader core replacement without deflation
- Engaging students in the beauty of mathematics
- What is this stats overlay that's appeared?
- "Tail -f" on symlink that points to a file on another drive has interval stops, but not when tailing the original file
- Taylor Swift - Use of "them" in her text "she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them"
- What prevents indoor climbing gyms from making a v18 boulder even if one hasn't been found outside?
- Were the PS5 disk version console just regular digital version consoles with a pre-installed disk module?
- How to prove that the Greek cross tiles the plane?
- Is it feasible to create an online platform to effectively teach college-level math (abstract algebra, real analysis, etc.)?
- Can I repeat link labels several times on a web page without hurting SEO by using meta attributes?
- Rocky Mountains Elevation Cutout
- Is a thing just a class with only one member?
- Copyright Fair Use: Is using the phrase "Courtesy of" legally acceptable when no permission has been given?
- How do elected politicians get away with not giving straight answers?
- Doesn't nonlocality follow from nonrealism in the EPR thought experiment and Bell tests?
- cat file contents to clipboard over ssh and across different OS
- What is the shortest viable hmac for non-critical applications?
- What is the rationale behind 32333 "Technic Pin Connector Block 1 x 5 x 3"?
- Why Pythagorean theorem is all about 2?
- Is it a correct rendering of Acts 1,24 when the New World Translation puts in „Jehovah“ instead of Lord?
- How can I verify integrity of the document types?
- How can I drill a perpendicular hole through thick lumber using handheld drill?
- How did people know that the war against the mimics was over?
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Coming to your present query, as we just indicated, this has been a slow change from 'Awaiting Reviewer Assignment' to 'Under Review.' But this could be because the associate editor (AE) may have had a challenge finding reviewers for your manuscript.
I submitted my manuscript to a journal. After a short time, the status of the manuscript changed to 'Reviewer selection,' then 'Reviewer assignment', then 'Reviewer selection', and then 'Reviewer assignment' again. The status has not changed to 'Under review'. I am afraid that after this long period, the editor will reject the manuscript.
I submitted an article 5 months ago to a journal. Since then, the article has been jumping between "Waiting for Reviewer Assignment" and "Contacting Potential Reviewers" (10 changes of status now). The article is quite technical and multidisciplinary, so I understand that finding reviewers is hard.
Decoding Status Updates. Understanding the significance of manuscript statuses is crucial. 'Reviewers assigned' indicates that experts have been sent an invitation to evaluate your paper, while 'under review' suggests that your manuscript is actively being assessed by reviewers. So, why the sudden shift from 'under review' to 'reviewers ...
For further insights, you may go through this related query by another researcher: Why does my manuscript's status keep changing from "awaiting reviewer selection" to "awaiting reviewer assignment"? So, great. Your manuscript has cleared desk screening and is being sent for peer review - that's one step/obstacle crossed.
Scenario 2: awaiting reviewer selection>> under review If this was the way the status had changed, then it is possible that the online status tracking software uses the status "awaiting reviewer selection" to indicate that the paper is with the editor. ... After the ADM had been assigned, I remember seeing "reviewer assignment" and "reviewer ...
What the "awaiting reviewer scores" most plausibly means here is that the reviews are now due! 4 weeks is also the time I'd expect the AE to allot for the reviewers (from past experience), and so the timing is right for the status to change from "Under review" to "Awaiting reviewer scores" - so it just means some reviewers haven't yet submitted ...
Peer reviewers are given 2 weeks to submit their review of your article. On the occasion that a reviewer withdraws from the process, the Editorial Team will begin the reviewer selection process again. 5. Awaiting Editor Decision. Your article has now received the minimum number of reviews required to make a decision.
6. Decision notification e-mails and what they mean. There are several decisions that authors may receive after submitting their paper to one of the Society's journals: Reject without review: The Action Editor has rejected the paper without sending it for peer review. Reject: The paper has been through the peer review process and the Action ...
Peer review is an honorary service that requires detailed scrutiny and evaluation of the manuscript and therefore takes time. The amount of time a manuscript is in review depends on reviewer availability. Please note that other statuses may fall under this umbrella, such as "Awaiting Reviewer Scores." Required Reviews Complete
If only one reviewer agrees to review and all the others decline the invitation, however, your manuscript may well return to this stage while the Editor selects more. ... Awaiting Reviewer Assignment. This rather ambiguous stage is when reviewers have been invited, but we are waiting for the required number to agree to review. In other words ...
Initially the status was "awaiting admin checklist", and then changed to "under review". Today, I noticed that the status was then changed to "awaiting reviewer assignment".
After one day the status was EA assignment pending and after two more days it was under review. But only after two days under review the status changed to " ... What does it mean that the status of a submitted major revision is simultaneously 'awaiting reviewer scores' and 'awaiting decision'? Hot Network Questions
My manuscript submission status in manuscriptcentral changed from 'Awaiting Reviewer Assignment' to 'under review' last three days ago. But today suddenly the status changed back to ...
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 reviewers for your paper. Related reading: What does a status change from "Awaiting reviewer score" back to "Awaiting reviewer assignment" mean?
My manuscript submission status in manuscriptcentral changed from 'Awaiting Reviewer Assignment' to 'under review' last three days ago. But today suddenly the status changed back to ...
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) The initial selection of referees is usually comprised in the previous step.
I am curious as to why the status of the manuscript regularly changes between 'awaiting reviewer selection' and 'awaiting reviewer assignment'. This has happened several times. Any thoughts? ... Once the requisite number of reviewers accept the invitation, the status will change to "under review." However, if one or more reviewers decline the ...
In addition to points discussed above, the current status 'awaiting reviewer scores' means that your paper has been sent for a second review. For most journals, when we submit revised manuscript ...
I submitted a manuscript to a journal, and the status changed from Awaiting Reviewer Selection to Awaiting Reviewer Confirmation. It has been 1.5 months with no change in status. 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 ...
Peer review is an honorary service that requires detailed scrutiny and evaluation of the manuscript and therefore takes time. The amount of time a manuscript is in review depends on reviewer availability. Please note that other statuses may fall under this umbrella, such as "Awaiting Reviewer Scores." Required Reviews Complete
Verified Reviews - IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS. Note: Verified reviews are sourced from across review platforms and social media globally. 2022/10/13 submit, Awaiting AE Assignment 2022/10/17 Status: Awaiting Reviewer Selection 2022/11/4 Status: Under review 2023/2/12 Status: Major Revision 2023/3/27 Major revision submission, Status ...
1. It typically means that the paper has been received, has been put in the work queue of the editor, but the editor has not assigned reviewers. Or (in one system I know of), that the editor has not assigned the necessary number of reviewers. That could be because the system requires four reviewers, but the editor has only gotten the commitment ...