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 .
- Journal Article Publishing Support Center
To post social content, you must have a display name. The page will refresh upon submission. Any pending input will be lost.
How can I view and manage the pending Reviewers for a submission?
In Editorial Manager (EM), Editors can use the link 'Invite Reviewers' to open the Reviewer Selection Summary to see all reviewer activity for the submission, and take actions on each reviewer. To access this screen all of the following must be true:
- With Editor
- Reviewers Invited
- Under Review
- Required Reviews Complete
- You have at least one of the permissions to Invite, Assign, Propose, or set Reviewers as Alternate.
- You have access to view the submission because you are assigned to it, or because you have View All Submissions permissions.
- Locate the submission in your Main Menu or via Search Submissions.
- Select ' Invite Reviewers ' to open the reviewer selection summary. The screen is divided into sections.
- The Invite Reviewers menu has links to more information about the submission and actions you may need to take.
- The top area has instruction text followed by a Search Type section . the options here depend on the journal configuration, your permissions, and the details of the submission. See How can I search for reviewers in EM? for more details.
The Invite Reviewers Menu is found on the left side of the Reviewer Selection Summary Page and is divided into sections:
Review Settings
Note that an Edit link appears here only if you have permission to adjust the settings.
- Required Reviews - #: when this number of reviews are complete, the status changes to 'Required Reviews Complete'
- Uninvite After - # days: This many days after an invitation is sent the reviewer will be uninvited. When set to 0 there is no automatic uninvitation.
- Unassign After - # days: This many days after an agreed review is due, the reviewer will be uninvited. When set to 0 there is no automatic uninvitation. Note that a setting in the article type determines if partially completed reviews will remain open past this date.
For more information see How can reviewers be automatically uninvited?
View Submission Information
- View Reviews and Comments: opens a popup window listing all completed reviews and editor comments, see more details here .
- Manuscript Details: opens the usual Detail popup windows. Here you can edit the due dates of the reviewers, if you have that permission. See more details on reviewer due dates here .
- History: Opens the usual History popup window, see more details here .
Quick Action Links
- Submit Editor's Decision and Comments: removes you from this Reviewer Selection screen and begins the Submit Decision process.
- Send E-mail: opens a popup window to send an email through EM, which will be saved in the history of this submission.
- Register and Select New Reviewer: Begins the process of registering a new reviewer; you must have the person's email address, name, and country to complete the process.
- Request Unregistered Reviewer: Opens an email form for you to enter details of reviewers, which you can then send to the Editorial Office to be registered.
Note than most journal will have only one of these last two, 'Request Unregistered Reviewers' if there is a central editorial office responsible for this task, or 'Register and select new reviewer', if editors are able to do this directly.
There may be additional external research tools linked in this section if enabled for your journal, for example 'Search Similar Articles in MEDLINE'.
Set Preferences
- My Suggest Reviewer Preferences: allows you to alter the options for the 'Suggest reviewer' Search type as described here . This link is usually hidden for journal without defined Classification lists.
- My Reviewer Display Preferences:. allows you to set the filter and sort options for searches within the EM database. See How can I search for Reviewers in Editorial Manager?
This section lists all reviewers who have been invited for the current revision of this submission. Each is listed with details and actions depending on current status, as in this example . The number of currently complete, assigned, and invited reviewers is shown in the section heading.
- Review Complete: shows the date of completion. No actions are available.
- Partial Review Saved: Shows the date the reviewer saved a partial review. Buttons for 'Send Reminder' and 'Unassign Reviewer' appear at the right.
- Agreed to Review: shows the date the reviewer agreed. Buttons for 'Send Reminder' and 'Unassign Reviewer' appear at the right, if you have those permissions...
- Reviewer Invited: shows the invitation date. Buttons for 'Send Reminder' and 'Uninvite Reviewer' appear at the right, if you have those permissions..
- If the invited or agreed reviewer is uninvited, or declines, then the first linked alternate may automatically be invited, depending on the rules defined for this article type. See Alternate Reviewers in EM for more details.
- How can I use Alternate Reviewers in Editorial Manager?
- If the reviewer left a comment while declining, there is a View link to see that comment.
- Un-invited Before Agreeing to Review: shows the uninvited date. A 'Reinvite Reviewer' button appears at the right, which would allow you to invite the reviewer immediately, or to set as alternate or proposed.
- Un-assigned After Agreeing to Review: shows the uninvited date. A 'Reinvite Reviewer' button appears at the right, which would allow you to invite the reviewer immediately, or to set as alternate or proposed.
This section lists all those who have been added to the submission as alternate reviewers, excepting those that have already been linked to a specific invited reviewer.
When any reviewer declines or is uninvited, the next valid alternate may be invited, according to the rules defined in the Article Type. See Alternate Reviewers in EM for more details.
- Use the Link button to link an alternate to a reviewer listed in the Invite section.
- Promote will bring you to the usual Review Search results page, with the target reviewer as the only candidate listed.
Proposed reviewers shows any reviewers proposed by an editor, this is reviewers that have been found by some search and listed here so they could quickly be selected without need to search again. See How can I use Proposed Reviewers in Editorial Manager?
Some tasks for managing reviews are found in other screens.
- To view and update reviewer due dates, select ' Manuscript Details ' in the left hand link list. See How Can I view and change a reviewer due date?
- To take action on behalf of reviewers, select ' Manuscript Details ' and look for a [Proxy] link after the review name. See How can I act on behalf of other users in Editorial Manager?
- Sending multiple reviewer reminders must be done from your main menu link 'Send Reminder Letters'. See How can I send reviewer reminders?
Was this answer helpful?
Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch.
Help us to help you:
Thank you for your feedback!
- Why was this answer not helpful?
- It was hard to understand / follow.
- It did not answer my question.
- The solution did not work.
- There was a mistake in the answer.
- Feel free to leave any comments below: Please enter your feedback to submit this form
Related Articles:
- How can I search for Reviewers in Editorial Manager?
- How do I select and invite reviewer candidates in Editorial Manager?
- Video Guide: Find reviewers using Scopus
- Video Guide: Searching for Reviewers in Journal Database
- What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager?
For further assistance:
No recent searches
Popular Articles
Sorry! nothing found for
How can I check the status of my submitted paper?
Modified on Mon, 24 Jun 2024 at 11:40 AM
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. 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. |
Please see our resources on the peer review process and tips on How to Get Published .
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
- Sociology Job Market Forum
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register .
- Journals, publishers, and other publication venues
Time to reviewer assignment
- 2024-2025 New Positions of Interest
- 2024-2025 PostDocs
- 2024-2025 Non Academic Job Market
- 2024-2025 Status of Searches
- 2024-2025 Hires
- 2023-2024 New Positions of Interest
- 2023-2024 Post Docs
- 2023-2024 Non Academic Job Market
- 2023-2024 Status of Searches
- 2023-2024 Hires
- 2022-2023 New Positions of Interest
- 2022-2023 Post Docs
- 2022-2023 Non Academic Job Market
- 2022-2023 Status of Searches
- 2022-2023 Hires
- 2021-2022 New Positions of Interest
- 2021-2022 PostDocs
- 2021-2022 Non-Academic Job Market
- 2021-2022 Status of Searches
- 2021-2022 Hires
- 2020-2021 New Positions of Interest
- 2020-2021 Postdocs
- 2020-2021 Non-Academic Job Market
- 2020-2021 Status of Searches
- 2020-2021 Hires
- 2019-2020 New Positions of Interest
- 2019-2020 postdocs
- 2019-2020 Non-academic job market
- 2019-2020 Status of Searches
- 2019-2020 hires
- 2018-2019 New Positions of Interest
- 2018-2019 postdocs
- 2018-2019 non-academic job market
- 2018-2019 status of searches
- 2018-2019 hires
- 2017-2018 New Positions of interest
- 2017-2018 PostDoc Information
- 2017-2018 Non-Academic Job Market
- 2017-2018 Status of Searches
- 2017-2018 Hires
- 2016-2017 New Positions of Interest
- 2016-2017 PostDoc Information
- 2016-2017 Non-Academic Job Market
- 2016-2017 Status of Searches
- 2016-2017 Hires
- 2015-2016 New Positions of interest
- 2015-2016 PostDoc Information
- 2015-2016 Non-Academic Job Market
- 2015-2016 Status of Searches
- 2015-2016 Hires
- 2014-2015 New Positions of Interest
- 2014-2015 PostDoc Information
- 2014-2015 Non Academic Job Market
- 2014-2015 Status of Searches
- 2014-2015 Hires
- 2013-2014 New Positions of Interest
- 2013-2014 PostDoc Information
- 2013-2014 Non Academic Job Market
- 2013-2014 Status of Searches
- 2013-2014 Hires
- 2012-2013 New Positions of Interest
- 2012-2013 PostDoc Information
- 2012-2013 Non academic job market
- 2012-2013 Status of Searches
- 2012-2013 Hires
- 2011-2012 New Positions of Interest
- 2011-2012 PostDoc Information
- 2011-2012 Non Academic Job Market
- 2011-2012 Status of Searches/Hires
- 2011-2012 Hires
- Questions and Advice
- Misc. Job Market Discussions
- Pre ABD forum
- Research Forum
- Teaching Forum
- Previous Thread
- Next Thread
- Please make a selection first
- « Prev
- Next »
Quick ReplyStack Exchange NetworkStack 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 typical workflow of a journal look like? How should I interpret a particular submission status?What steps does a manuscript typically go through from submission to publication (or rejection) in a typical journal? How are these steps referred to, in particular by editorial systems, and how long do they each typically take? Note that this question is about the typical situation and hence not about:
This is a canonical question on this topic as per this Meta post . It is usually used as a duplicate target for questions of the form: “How to interpret submission status S at journal J?”, since taking all combinations S×J would be unwieldy. Due to its nature, this question is rather broad and not exemplary for a regular question on this site. Please feel free to improve this question.
Feel free to edit this answer to improve it, in particular to add other names you know to be used for the individual steps or to extend the maximum typical durations from your experience. The source for the diagram can be found here .  Initial CheckThis step is usually performed by the journal's administrative staff. It may include for example:
Also known as: technical check, initial QC (AIP), admin checklist (IEEE), Awaiting Editorial Office Processing (ScholarOne), quality check (NPG) Typical duration: A few workdays. Editor assignment or invitationBased on the topic of the manuscript and suggestions by the authors, an editor is assigned to handle the manuscript. Depending on the journal, the assignment may be done by technical staff, the journal's chief editor, or automatic by submission category or author suggestion. With some journals, editors are invited and not assigned. An editor who is invited may decline in some cases . Also known as: with editors (APS), editor assigned (Editorial Manager, AIP), AE assignment (IEEE), assigned to the editor (NPG) Typical duration: A few workdays to several weeks. Editorial assessmentThe editors decide whether the paper should enter the review process or should be rejected directly, e.g., because it does not fit the journal’s scope or requirements on importance or quality. A rejection at this (or the previous) stage is called desk reject. The paper may also be returned to the authors for reasons other than rejection, such as to request more data or clearer figures prior to formal review. With revised manuscripts, the editors assess whether the existing reviews have been addressed adequately. If yes, they either proceed with another round of reviews or jump to editorial decision immediately – this mostly depends on the magnitude and nature of the revision. Also known as: with editors (APS), waiting for potential reviewer assignment (AIP), under review ( ScholarOne ), assigned to the editor (NPG) Typical duration: This strongly depends on the journal: With some journals, it is less than a week; with others it may take a month, in particular if several people are involved in the decision or the initial quality hurdle is high. Peer reviewThe editor selects a number of potential referees to review the manuscript. Should a referee decline to review or not perform the review in a certain time (as given by the editor or journal), the editor usually has to select a new referee. The main exception to this is if the other referees already provided sufficient reviews at this point. With revised manuscripts, usually the reviewers from the previous round are selected. The editor may also decide that certain or all reviewers need not see the manuscript again, as their comments have been adequately addressed, or take the opportunity to seek the opinion of one or several additional referees. Also known as: with reviewers, with referees, under review, awaiting referee assignment, awaiting referee reports, awaiting reviewer scores, awaiting reviewer invitation ( ScholarOne ), reviewers assigned , manuscript assigned to peer-reviewer/s (NPG) The initial selection of referees is usually comprised in the previous step. Some editorial systems give the status as with editors , awaiting reviewer assignment (or similar) if a new referee needs to be assigned and no other referee is currently assigned. Others will show under review regardless. Typical duration: This strongly depends on the field and journal. It typically ranges from a few weeks to several months , but in some cases (particularly for highly theoretical work where intense proof-checking is expected), it may be as long as one to two years. Moreover, the key factors for the duration of an individual peer-review process are how soon the reviewers perform the review and how many reviewers decline or fail to review the manuscript. Thus, even for a given journal, there is a strong variation of review durations. Some journals give their statistics on this time (or a related one) on their webpage. Editorial decisionBased on the reviews, the editors decide whether:
Note that the editor might not always wait for all reviews to be returned before making a decision. Also known as with editors (APS), review completed, required reviews completed ( Elsevier Editorial System (EES) ), awaiting AE recommendation , awaiting decision (ScholarOne), awaiting EiC decision (IEEE), Editor Decision Started (AIP), Decision Started (NPG), or pending decision (Bioinformatics Oxford journal). This may be followed by a short stage denoted decision letter being prepared (or similar). Typical duration: A few workdays to a week. This may take longer with some journals, in particular if several people are involved in the decision. Copy editing and typesettingThe article is copy-edited and typeset by the publisher. Occasionally, requests to the authors may occur at this stage, e.g., due to low-quality figures. For some journals, a pre-copy-editing version of the manuscript will be put online at this point under a category like Just Accepted, with a warning that the current version has not yet been copy-edited and may change further before publication. Also known as: in production, in press Typical duration: This mostly depends on the publisher’s backlog – between a few workdays to over a year, roughly correlated with the length of the publication delay (see below). Final proofreadingThe authors are sent the paper’s proofs, i.e., the paper as it is about to be published. If corrections are necessary, it goes back to copy editing and typesetting. Also known as: proofs with authors , Galley proof Typical duration: Most journals request proofs to be returned within a certain time, usually between 48 hours and a week ( reasons ). PublicationFor some journals, particularly newer ones with an online-centric publication model, an article will be published immediately after the previous step has been completed. If the article is subject to an Article Processing Charge (APC) or other publication fees, publication will typically only occur after the applicable fees have been paid or waived. Other journals with a more traditional process will queue up the publication for collation into a journal issue with other articles. The time before this issue is published depends on the size of the journal’s publication backlog and can range anywhere from a few weeks to several years. Many journals with an issue-based delay provide “online early” access to articles so that they are available to the community before the final issue date. Articles thus often acquire two publication dates: one for online and one for print publication. Further reading
You must log in to answer this question.Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications journals paper-submission journal-workflow canonical-question ..
Hot Network Questions
|
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
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. So, please give me advice.
The manuscript being stuck at Awaiting Reviewer Assignment for a month is not uncommon. This means that while the manuscript cleared the desk screening and was deemed good to go for peer review, the journal is finding it somewhat challenging to identify the right peer reviewers for your paper.
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.
I recently submitted a paper to a (not very selective) journal (Sage publications). After a week of submission, the status changed to "awaiting reviewer selections". I took this to mean that the paper has passed the desk review, since the editor is selecting reviewers. However, after a few days, I got a desk reject notification.
They tried on their own, failed, then asked you for help after two months (kind of a long time, but not a priori unreasonable). The people that you suggested somehow didn't pan out, and they reacted badly to that, putting your work on some sort of long-term queue. 2) Whatever electronic system is conveying to you the message "awaiting reviewer ...
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 Invite Reviewers Menu is found on the left side of the Reviewer Selection Summary Page and is divided into sections:. Review Settings . Note that an Edit link appears here only if you have permission to adjust the settings. Required Reviews - #: when this number of reviews are complete, the status changes to 'Required Reviews Complete' Uninvite After - # days: This many days after an ...
The status "Awaiting reviewer assignment" means that your paper has cleared teh initial editorial screening and will be sent for peer review. During this time, the editor looks for suitable reviewers for your paper and sends out review invitations.
Is one month a long time to wait for the reviewer scores? It is a bit long, but the delay could be because not all the reviewer scores have come in. Perhaps one reviewer (or two, in case the manuscript was sent to more than two reviewers) is still to send in their review. Is the long time (delay) a bad sign? Not necessarily.
Awaiting Editor Assignment: Multiple editors may be assigned to your submission, depending on the journal's workflow. ... 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 ...
If not, I would contact them immediately just to check up. A month is a long time to go with no word. My paper submissions (all to the Astrophysical Journal) have all been followed up by the editor within a week of initial submission. ... How to handle situation in which the article has been "Awaiting reviewer assignment" for 5 months? 3. More ...
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 ...
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 ...
Reviewer Assignment:The status "awaiting reviewer assignment" indicates that the editorial team is in the process of selecting and assigning new reviewers to evaluate your revised manuscript ...
After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. This change has occurred ...
1. You can send a request for an update at any time. You may or may not learn anything. There could be many reasons for a delay, including not sending too many papers to one editor and needing to find another who is suitable. But an average of 30 days tells you little about the distribution of actual times.
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 ...
thanks a lot. the status of "awaiting reviewer assignment" just last for less than one day, and on the same day, the status was changed to "awaiting reviewer scores".
Anybody know how long it should take a journal to assign reviewers to an article? I have had a piece under review for over 2 months, and the online status is still "awaiting reviewer assignment," even though authors are encouraged to suggest the potential reviewers (which I did).
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?
Hello, I submitted my paper to one of the high impact factor journals month ago. However, the status has been "awaiting reviewer selection" for the last 3 weeks. I don't know what this means and why it is taking so long. Although in my earlier submission of other papers in the same journal, in this time frame, my paper went into review process.
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.
This means that your manuscript has not yet been assigned to a reviewer. In this stage, the editor identifies a few reviewers for your paper and sends out email invitations to them. Once the required number of reviewers accept the review invitation, the status changes to "Under review." However, if one or more reviewers decline the review ...