Under review after minor revision. Revision decisions do .

Under review after minor revision I re-submitted the paper after incorporating these changes in the manuscript (I work in Biology field). 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. Share Sort by: Best. One month later, major revision was suggested. 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. user contributions licensed under CC BY-SA. However, after we made the revisions, the manuscript status changed to "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation. 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. Most journals will try to catch this and either reject outright, or assign it to the same AE to handle. Minor Revision: Publish without revision, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication. After six months, I received the reviews and was asked to do major revisions. The paper is still in Under Review status. " 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. 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. On December 5, I received a minor revision decision from one reviewer and a major revision decision from the other. However, one of my article which was accepted with minor revision is now under "Editor Invited" status after the submission of revised version. Minor revisions will include formatting or writing suggestions and are typically issues you can easily address. 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. I resubmitted the revised manuscript, after which the status showed that the review process had been completed. 심사자 선정이 끝나고 심사자에게 논문이 전달된 상태. After one week, I submitted my revised manuscript, responding to all reviewers’ comments. It has been over two weeks, but the status is still displayed as ‘Awaiting Admin Processing. I submitted a manuscript to a journal that uses the ScholarOne system. Should I wait for them or write to them? Please suggest. ' Is 8 days a long time to provide a final decision especially since the reviewers' responses were rather quick? Thank you for your answer. 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. After resubmitting, its status changed to "Editor Assigned," "under review," and after about 7 days it became "Editor assigned" again. ? active (under review), discuss, withdrawn, rejected, minor revision, major revision, accepted, no show, published. It all depends on the editor to adjudge the comments base on the merit of the paper. In second round of review, first reviewer checks whether all his/her comments have been addressed or not. 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. 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. 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. 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. The status was changed to "Editorial assessment" soon, but 2 months have passed without progress since then. However, two days later, the status changed to ‘Under Review. 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. 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. 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. Revise your paper. If you're After two months, I received minor revision as the decision. Now status of manuscript is changed to Editor Assigned again. (I wasn't explicitly asked to send my paper for language editing. Decision Date: 14 April 2023 Under review: The paper is with reviewers for comment or waiting for the Action Editor’s decision. 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’. After 5 months I received a "Major revision". However, after I performed minor edits and resubmitted it, it went to under-review. The paper status has changed from "major revision" to "with editor" after submitting the revised paper. I have revised the paper according to the referees' comments. After major revision, two reviewers gave me minor revision (only change one word) and the editor was pleased to consider publication. 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. 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. – semmyk-research. Now, again it I just submitted a revised paper to ScholarOne (major revision). The AE will use judgment in re-engaging the reviewers to perform the minor review. Around the end of last year, the journal changed its chief editor who was responsible for my article. -1. Thus, it is difficult to tell how much time the final decision will take after a major revision. I recently received two very positive reviews requiring minor edits in the IEEE Access journal. 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 sent the review reports addressing all the The review then continues from step 6 above. I submitted a manuscript to a BMC journal in the middle of July, and received a decision of minor revision in August. 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. This status also applies to second review rounds (revised version reviews). 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. After review you may get two options major or minor 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 have submitted a paper to a journal, and received the editors decision (Major Revision). To date, the status is “under review”. Under review = The paper is being peer-reviewed. After 1 week, the submission’s status changed to "under review" and two weeks after that the status changed to "with editor". After making the necessary adjustments, I resubmitted the revised manuscript on the 21st of November. After the resubmission was competed the status of the manuscript was finally changed to “under review” after “editorial assessment” after 6 months. I submitted the revised manuscript after one-and-a-half months. 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. Now, again it I have submitted my manuscript to a well-known journal on April 2, 2016. If I fix them, he will be pleased to reconsider his decision. After one day of submission, status was ‘Awaiting Decision’; but now after 10 days, status change into ‘Awaiting reviewer selection’. After that, it changed to 'Under Review. Is it possible that after sending minor revisions my paper has gone for a fresh review again. 3 months later of submitting the revised (R1) version, I have received again the review report for Minor revision further required. 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). Note that the time it takes for an editor to Review after minor revision [duplicate] Ask Question Asked 6 years, 5 months ago. For 3-4 days, the status of my manuscript status was showing to be Editor Assigned and after that status changed to Under Review. Comments: In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted after minor revision. 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. I have submitted my manuscript to a Springer journal. No matter which decision you receive, be sure to read the entire decision letter carefully. After submitting the revised article for a week, a ADM was assigned and the status has changed to "awaiting reviewer invitation. I submitted my manuscript to an Elsevier journal in January 2020. 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. I answered all the reviewers and resubmitted the article. 모든 심사자가 받은 논문을 읽은 후 평가를 제출해야 하므로 상당한 시간이 소요될 수 있다. After the first review, it came back for a major revision. 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 want to know how long will this status last. Then, I have made all the necessary modifications and resubmitted. I have submitted my paper to a Sage journal. request minor or major revisions, or reject the paper due to unresolvable concerns. "major revision": The revised paper will require a second round of reviews. There were 3-4 little modifications required by referees. However, the reviewer of my papers have pointed out some shortcomings of my paper. 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". The statement was: ‘Your paper was found acceptable pending revision. there were two reviewers, reviewer#1 said `The authors have made all the modifications indicated. I sent an email to editor, who was handling my article, he said he can not see revised version on system. Revision decisions do Publish without revision, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication. this status is not mentioned in Elsevier site! I'm confused about this statuses. Then I received a reject letter from the new editor. 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). 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. 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. I have received minor comments (only a few text corrections) from the referee who suggested major revision at the 1st review. 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. 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). If the editor made a decision, it should be 'decision in progress'. But until now, 5/17, the status are still "awaiting decision". Even the best papers could sometimes receive a major revision or rejection after an initial minor revision request. The fate of the manuscript can not be predicted for a I recently resubmitted a manuscript after making major revisions. If yes, then reviewer provides his/her minor and major comments. Commented Mar 3, 2017 at 13:41 @MBK It's unusual to have such a delay, but could be any of those. I made the revision and resubmitted in the last week of November 2020. ) I read the manuscript again and again The paper was accepted with minor revision (two reviewers both recommended 'minor revision'). For the first week of submission, the status was "with editor" and then it changed to under review for one week revision. ’ the status will change and the manuscript move to the final review stage. The decision letter is delivered to the author via email. I submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal. After waiting 20 days for pending approval, the status now is reviewers invited. But here the chances are 50:50 depending on the reviewers comments. 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). After the submission of the second revision, the status was Under Review for 20 days. Minor Revision: The editors found your manuscript potentially acceptable for publication provided you make some minor adjustments. One day later, the status changed as "editor assigned". 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. resulting in minor revisions and after submitting them, the paper was accepted within one day by the editor. I submitted my manuscript to a journal. What actually happens with the manuscript depends on the editor and editorial policy. After 4 months received a review report with minor revisions. After re-submission, the status changed from "under review" to "decision in process". However, I have heard nothing from the journal for 3 weeks, though I assumed I would receive a response in a few days. One reviewer's comment was for acceptance, while the other reviewer wanted clarification about Stage 3: Peer review. Minor revision; Accept; Studies indicate that 21% of papers are rejected without review, and approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review. 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. 6. (Personally, I think what the comments meant is that it would be nice to have things include in my paper). The status has been showing " under review " for a month now. Based on this, it may take about two-three weeks for this round of review and for the final decision. however, for minor revisions, the editor often does not feel the need to send the paper to external reviewers again. I submitted my manuscript to an SCI journal, and was asked to make some revisions. ' After completing internal checks, each new submission is assigned to a Section Editor. and now after 40 days the status is still in that stage. 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. The main concern of the reviewer was to add the details in methods section and some amendments in the text. 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. 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. Then it will take probably one month to get your work accepted. 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 the status changed to “Decision in process”. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality Minor revision. For papers accepted after minor revision, the revised papers are often published without another full process of peer review. after that, the status change to with editor and thereafter a decision I submitted my article earlier this year in January. According to the publishing office, they can’t find a reviewer. 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. Publish after minor revision, appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. On 4/26, the status on ScholarOne changed to awaiting decision. There were 3 different reviewers and they made very relevant comments that I found very useful. One of my journal papers was under review in a reputed journal for over 2 years. On Jun 25, the status changed to Under Review right after i sent email to AE, and has remained so since then. These revisions were trivial, and so I resubmitted after one week. 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. After another month, I got back the review, asking to work on minor revisions. Both reviewers asked me to lengthen the introduction part and rewrite a convincing conclusion according to my research. 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. 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. 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. Months later I received a "Minor Revision". On December 20, I submitted the revised article. 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. Instances of this decision are also rather rare. 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. The current status is "under review" since July 23. 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. Typically, a reviewer’s decision falls in four categories: acceptance without revision, acceptance after minor revision, acceptance after major revision, and rejection. Accept after minor revision. One of the referee suggested minor revision, while the other suggested major revision. As the revision was not so difficult, I submitted the revised manuscript in the middle of August. 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". Another possible factor is that some publications may only allow one major revision in the review process. But 검색한 바에 따르면 저널에 따라 다르지만 보통 Major revision → Minor revision → Accept되는 경우가 제일 많다 고 하셔서 조금 안심을 했다. 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. A minor revision is close to a contract to publish the paper if certain changes are made. 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. " I had submitted my paper to a reputed journal. If the paper is not with reviewers, the status should be 'with editor'. 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). In case of a Under review ; This manuscript status indicates that a paper has been pre-checked and is now being peer-reviewed. What will be the I had a manuscript that was rejected after "minor revision. yet it unfortunately does happen. The comments were entirely new. However, although the paper went under review on 6th September, the status date of the paper have changed several times. The journal clearly said that the paper was accepted, subject to minor amendments and even went on to mention tentative publication dates. After that, it changed to Editor Assigned, and has been the same since January 17. Bearing in mind the decision was minor revision. • 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. Is the journal submission system showing the revised is under review? Major revision ought to go through review again (by the reviewers). 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. 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. 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. 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). It was rather an easy comment, so I resubmitted the case report after revision immediately. Even after minor reviews, it can take several weeks or even months for reviewers and editors to look at the paper again. I received a decision of ‘accept after minor revision’ for my submission to a Springer Nature journal. I have submitted the revised manuscript on July 20. 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. It usually takes around 48 hours. 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. If the initial reviews are conflicting, the Action Editor may occasionally decide to approach an additional suitable for publication after some relatively minor changes. While the reviewers had explicitly mentioned that there were minor issues, with about four issues a piece, the editor had requested a major revision. The status was "With Editor" for one day, then on the next it changed to "reviewers assigned". Asking the author for any revision, re-opens the Editorial Manager so that the authors can upload a revised version. The top 2 journals in sociology are notorious for this. But our paper status is Technical Check In Progress. " 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. 2주간 with editor로 있길래 에디터가 결정을 할 건가 싶었는데, under review로 상태가 바뀌었습니다. Also, as this is the third revision, we assume the latest is a minor revision. One reviewer suggested minor corrections and one reviewer suggested major corrections. Required reviews completed: Minimum number of reviews has been received. Also, the second round took 8 months. I think that under consideration may significate under review through several time steps according to the revision process. The journal office will follow up with late reviewers and keep you informed if there are any delays. 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. After about 80 days, I have received a 'major revisions' decision with the detailed comments of two reviewers. Moreover, careful revision for grammar and typos have been suggested. No, retracting after reviews is not ethical. ’ 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. 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. 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. 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. I revised the paper accordingly and addressed the feedbacks. After second revision, the submission’s status changed from "major revision" to "with editor". Then I re-submitted the revised form. After agreeing to review, external peer reviewers typically have 10 days to submit their review. ' Now, after three weeks, the status date of the manuscript has changed, but the status remains 'Reviewers Assigned. It roughly took around 19 days in total for this whole process. After the revision, the paper is sent back to the reviewers for checking the corrections and making their final decisions. 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. Now, again it . Now, again it Currently under review at the International Journal of Foo. Hello. My case report, which was edited by Editage, received a minor revision request by a journal. 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. Pending decision = A first assessment will be made by the Academic Editor. The paper was accepted with minor revision (two reviewers both recommended 'minor revision'). Major revision을 받은 논문이 accept되는 비율 에 대해서도 궁금했는데 정확한 In consequence, peer review times do vary per journal. 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 ". This list will guide your revision of the paper. Is it still with the associate editor or with the old reviewers. There are three basic types of decisions: Accept, Revise, and Reject. It's been almost a month since the last submission, but the status has remained Pending Decision. 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. And I am sure neither of them was the initial reviewer. If the status changes to “Under review,” it means that your paper has been sent to a reviewer again. Under Review. Either it can be accepted (after one more minor revision) or it can be rejected. I suppose that in most cases of minor revision, the revised manuscript will only be reviewed by the ADM or associate editor. 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. However, minor edits may be made and authors will need to work with the appropriate contacts to ensure these changes are incorporated after acceptance. 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". that my manuscript requires minor revision. Publish without revision, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication. The possible result of this review is acceptance of the manuscript, and the AE communicates the decision to the EiC for action. 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. The status of my paper shows "accepted". For the first round, I recieved a major revision and for the next two rounds, I received minor revisions. 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. After submitting the minor revision, the statutes changed to the pending editorial decision for 1 month. Accept with minor revisions: Also known as conditional acceptance, this decision means that the paper requires minor changes for it to be 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". 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. 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. 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. ' However, after 15 days, it again changed to 'Reviewers Assigned. Any article submitted to any journal goes under review if found suitable and within the scope of that journal. 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. 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. I got review reports after one month of submission. 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). Just list it as what it is, under review. Im very worried. Revision. " This status has not been changed for a month. 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. All of the sudden the statues changed to the revised version review from yesterday. I review many journal and conference papers frequently. 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. The most likely scenario seems to be that the editor send your work after minor revision to the referee who was asking for it. They have given a major revision decision twice. I then resubmitted the paper a month later. 2. 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. 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. The status was "With Editor" for three weeks, then it changed to "Under review". I did accordingly. I had received the following recommendation: accept subject to optional revision. 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. . However, a paper with major revisions is almost always sent out for a re-review. In addition, the academic editor initially assigned to it was also changed. However, two months after submitting the revisions, the status of the submission is still "Editor Assigned". The status changed to Under Review on August 30. 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. During the peer review process your article will show a status of ‘Under Review’. Under review: The handling editor has invited peer reviewers to evaluate the submission. My manuscript was first returned by a Springer journal for minor revisions. 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". In my opinion, first round decides whether the quality and technicality of the paper is considerable or not. After 10 months, I received a major revision and a minor revision decision by the [two] reviewers. 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). ’ I submitted the revised version, and now, the status is Under Review. Recently. The submission is waiting for you to complete the submission (or revision) process. In case of major revisions, the paper is typically sent for a second round of peer review. 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. However, I do not know how to present my under-review works. But the status of the paper is showing "under review" again. My article has been under review for seven months now, having undergone three revisions. It was updated to ‘Under Review’ on December 10, 2020, and has remained so till date. If it is rejected after review, you can use the feedback for improvements. 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. 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. Depending on the extent of the minor revision, the editor may decide not to send it out for re-review. The next status should make things clearer. 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. 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. – The first review was a major revision, then after submission of revision, within two months, I have received a minor revision. What is I have a paper on an Elsevier journal with "accept, minor revision". – Mohaqiq. 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". I have a paper on an Elsevier journal with "accept, minor revision". 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. 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 . Note that the time it takes for an editor to To answer your actual question, that’s quite simple. Today, another of my articles was accepted. 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). blwpgh bompgp xmlvrl phx ehfkyypi ifuqe oufjz cpt ldesmszkl psik