awaiting ae assignment

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.

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

The peer review process

The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 10 steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals. Explore what’s involved, below.

Editor Feedback: “Reviewers should remember that they are representing the readers of the journal. Will the readers of this particular journal find this informative and useful?”

1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system such as ScholarOne Manuscripts. Occasionally, journals may accept submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The Editorial Office checks that the paper adheres to the requirements described in the journal’s Author Guidelines. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC checks assesses the paper, considering its scope, originality and merits. The EiC may reject the paper at this stage.

4. EIC Assigns an Associate Editor (AE)

Some journals have Associate Editors ( or equivalent ) who handle the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.

5. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of reviewers is secured– commonly this is 2, but there is some variation between journals.

6. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline the invitation to review. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Review is Conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with the reviewer’s recommendation (e.g. to revise, accept or reject the paper).

8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making a decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

9. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Comments will be anonymous if the journal follows a single-anonymous or double-anonymous peer review model. Journals with following an open or transparent peer review model will share the identities of the reviewers with the author(s).

10. Next Steps

An editor's perspective.

Listen to a podcast from Roger Watson, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Advanced Nursing, as he discusses 'The peer review process'.

If accepted , the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision , the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision , the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

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 peer review process

When you have submitted your manuscript successfully the next step is peer review.

Types of peer review

BMJ mainly operates the following types of peer review:

• Open peer review: Reviewer and author are known to each other. These journals publish the reviewer comments and previous versions of the manuscript alongside the accepted paper.
• Single anonymised peer review: The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common.
• Double anonymised peer review: Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous to each other.
• Triple anonymised peer review: The handling editor, reviewer and author are anonymous to each other.

Each journal offers a different type of peer review, so please check on their individual websites for details.

Peer 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 .

While we aim to complete the peer review process as quickly as possible, please bear in mind that reviewers give their time voluntarily. There may be occasions where several reviewers are invited before the required number can be arranged, or when a reviewer fails to deliver a review and the invitation process needs to start again. The average time to first decision is published on each journal’s website.

Article provenance

BMJ is committed to transparency. Every article we publish includes a description of its provenance (commissioned or not commissioned) and whether it was internally or externally peer reviewed. Articles described as ‘internally peer reviewed’ will have been assessed by one or more of the journal’s editors.

Advice for Associate Editors

Thank you for agreeing to serve as an Associate Editor for the  IEEE Transactions on Information Theory . While selection as Associate Editor may be seen as a recognition of the high esteem in which you are held by your peers, please note that the position is not merely honorary—there is a lot of work to be done! Our readers are counting upon you to exercise your best judgement, based on your extensive technical expertise, to assist authors in improving the quality of their submitted papers so that the high standard expected of papers published in the  Transactions  is reached. Your job is a difficult one: you will coordinate the review process for a large number of papers, and for each paper you will be the main point-of-contact for authors, reviewers, the Area Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. The position, though voluntary, is time-consuming: be prepared to spend many hours reading papers, reading emails, chasing reviewers, and writing careful assessments and responses. You can expect to spend about 6 to 8 hours per week on Associate Editorial tasks, though naturally the load will be time-varying, and you will become more efficient as you gain experience.

Generalities

In coordinating the review process for each paper assigned to you by an Area Editor, your main loyalty must be to the  reader  of the  Transactions . As noted in the  Information for Reviewers , the suitability of a paper for publication must be assessed based on three criteria (two of them objective and one subjective), which, loosely speaking, can be phrased as follows: is the paper  new ?;  correct ?;  interesting ?

Novelty and correctness are obvious attributes that any newly published paper must possess. Novelty is a measure of the  results  and  ideas  of the paper: a paper can be considered novel if it contains a new result (even if the result flows from the application of well-known techniques) or if it contains a new idea (even if the idea merely reveals a simpler way to understand an old result).

The third question—is the paper interesting?—requires judgement and familiarity with the community served by the  Transactions . The question might also be phrased as “does it matter?” or “will it make a difference?” or “is it useful?” Of course this is a subjective criterion (after all, what is interesting to one person may not be interesting to another); what is intended by this question is whether or not the paper, if published, will serve the needs of the readership of the  Transactions . The information for authors states that

“novelty alone does not assure publication; the significance of a paper and its usefulness to this  Transactions ' readership will also be assessed.”

For example, a paper with new and correct results that are, however, purely of mathematical interest, without any engineering provenance or significance, may be deemed outside the scope of this  Transactions , and the authors re-directed to a suitable Mathematics journal. On the other hand, a paper that advances a well-recognized mathematical problem initially motivated by Information Theory and studied by members of our community, would certainly be deemed interesting.

When a paper does satisfy the three central criteria, a final measure that must be assessed is that of  length : is the length of the paper commensurate with the contribution that it makes? The  Transactions  imposes no page limits, and papers can range in length from 2 or 3 pages to more than 20. Short well-focused papers that make an important point briefly are certainly acceptable, and should not be lengthened unnecessarily. Authors should be discouraged from padding their papers by adding superfluous examples or excessively many simulation plots.

As an Associate Editor, you also have specific responsibilities towards the  authors . You must strive to:

• provide unbiased feedback in a timely manner, giving comments and making decisions that are supported by a suitable rationale;
• respond promptly and politely to author queries;
• avoid personal comments or criticism;
• maintain confidentiality of the content of the paper, and avoid using confidential information for your own purposes or for the advantage of others.

While fairness is of paramount concern in dealing with authors, please do note the emphasis on timeliness and civility: a lack of responsiveness, or providing responses which are curt or perfunctory, invariably lead to author complaints to the EiC, who must then intervene. The cumulative load of such interventions detracts unnecessarily from useful EiC functions.

In interacting with  reviewers , you have a duty to:

• preserve the anonymity of the reviewers;
• preserve the integrity of the review process by communicating the reviewers' comments to the authors without editing them;
• refrain from always asking a particular reviewer to provide comments on papers from a particular group of authors.

Associate Editors also have specific responsibilities towards the  Editor-in-Chief  and Area Editors . AEs must:

• alert the Area Editor and EiC promptly about possible conflicts of interest;
• notify the Area Editor and EiC promptly if circumstances arise that make it impossible to complete the handling of the paper in a timely manner;
• inform the Area Editor and EiC of any festering disagreement with authors;
• notify the Area Editor and EiC promptly with any ethical concerns.

As of 2021, the  IEEE Transactions on Information Theory  receives approximately 100 submissions per month. Submissions occur online via the  ScholarOne Manuscripts  (S1M) web site. A small number of submissions are out-of-scope, and will be rejected immediately by the Area Editor (RE). Taking into account the subject of the paper and the current load of each AE, the remaining papers are assigned by the RE to an Associate Editor for handling. Each AE will end up being assigned about 2 to 3 papers per month, though these numbers may fluctuate from month to month and may be larger near the beginning of your term. You may occasionally be assigned a paper that is not directly within your main area of expertise, but usually not so far away that you are not able to identify appropriate referees for the paper. If it happens that you are assigned a paper that you cannot or wish not to handle, please alert the RE immediately so that the paper can be re-assigned promptly.

The Paper is Assigned

You will be notified by an email from the Area Editor, sent via S1M, whenever a paper is assigned to you. Each paper is assigned a unique identifier of the form IT-YY-NNNN[.Rr], where YY identifies the year of submission, NNNN is a number that increments by one for each manuscript received, and [.Rr] is a suffix, not present on the original submission, that identifies the  revision  number, i.e., .R1 for the first  revision , .R2 for the second  revision , and so on. Normally  all  steps of the paper-handling process, including all official correspondence with the authors and with reviewers, should be conducted via S1M. Each action (assignment to an AE, inviting a reviewer, sending an email, changing the status of a paper) is carefully recorded by S1M in the audit trail associated with the paper. This audit trail is accessible, for the papers assigned to you, through your S1M Associate Editor Center. Please note that email communications made outside of the S1M system can always be added to the official record by “cutting-and-pasting”; if needed, the Transactions Administrative Assistant can assist with this.

Although the paper-assignment letters are derived from a standard template (and all look much the same) please read each one carefully, as often the RE will have included possible comments on the quality or contribution the paper, or will have included suggestions for possible reviewers. (Should you accidentally delete the email, don't worry: you can always recover it from the audit trail.)

First Reading

When a paper is assigned, after carefully noting any comments from the Area Editor in the assignment letter, your first step is to read through the paper. In this initial scan of the paper, you should not attempt to read the paper carefully for correctness, but just read it to get a sense of the scope of the results. You should examine the list of references to see which previous papers are being cited. The journals and conferences cited serve as an indicator of the readership that the paper addresses and as a measure of the degree to which the paper fits the  Transactions  (or, possibly, a different journal). You should also check to see whether the authors have included a cover letter or any other supplementary material, and read through this material, if present. Although cover letters are not always present, it is expected that authors will provide such a letter in case the paper is a  revision  of a previous submission. Indeed, inclusion of such a letter is  mandatory  if the paper is a  resubmission  of one previously rejected by the  Transactions . Such a letter should indicate, in detail, the manner of  revision , or, in the latter case, how the issues that led to the rejection of the previous manuscript have been addressed. In the case of  resubmission , failure to include such a letter can be the sole reason for immediate rejection, and in some circumstances might even lead to a publication ban.

After your initial reading of the paper, you may decide to take one of three actions:

• Inform the Area Editor that you are unable to handle the paper because of a conflict of interest, or because the paper is too far outside the domain of your expertise.
• Initiate an  “immediate rejection (IR) ”, because the paper clearly does not meet the high standards of the  Transactions  (for example, it could be poorly written, out-of-scope, unlikely to interest the  Transactions ' readership, or present a trivial or well-known result). More on immediate rejections  below .
• Send the paper out for review. This is the normal course of action.

Immediate Rejections

The  IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations Manual  states, in Section 8.8.2.A.3, that an article may be “prescreened,” i.e., immediately rejected, when the authors have (a) not followed IEEE guidelines for style, (b) have not adhered to IEEE policies, (c) have submitted an incomprehensible article, (d) have submitted an article whose subject and contents do not meet the scope of the journal, or (e) have submitted an article that does not meet the minimum criterion for technical substance established for the periodical. Rejection under criterion (e) requires concurrence of the EiC and at least two other members of the editorial board. Thus, under these rules, an immediate rejection under criterion (e) can occur with the concurrence of three individuals: for the  IT Transactions , these could be: (i) two Area Editors and the EiC,  (ii) the Area Editor, and the AE handling the paper (if one has been assigned), and the EiC.

If the second route is followed for the immediate rejection, the AE carefully reads the paper, and writes a thorough draft rationale explaining the reasons for rejection. The AE sends the draft rationale to both the EiC and the Area Editor for comments and concurrence. The EiC and Area Editor also read the paper and provide comments on the rationale. Only when all three individuals agree that indeed a immediate rejection is appropriate, can the paper then be rejected without sending it out for further review. The rejection letter to the authors can only come from the Area Editor or the EiC ; the AE workspace on ScholarOne does not provide the option for immediate rejection. Should there be disagreement about the immediate rejection decision, the paper must be sent out for review following the usual procedures.

Immediate rejections should normally be executed within 10 business days of receiving the paper assignment.

Inviting Reviewers

Apart from communicating editorial decisions, reviewer selection is probably the most important task of an Associate Editor. A misstep here will lead to delays, frustration, and author complaints. It is therefore advisable to think carefully about whom to invite. The ideal reviewer is probably somebody currently active in the given area, who is up to date on recent developments, and who will read the paper in depth, providing detailed suggestions for improvement. It is often useful to invite a mixture of senior and junior referees. Senior reviewers are able to provide broad perspectives and insight and often can make helpful connections to related areas. More junior referees, particularly those who are actively working on the topic, will be able to provide detailed comments about the contributions of the paper. Outstanding senior doctoral students working on a given topic can and should be selected as reviewers, but it would be unwise to rely solely on student reviewers for any given paper. Many potential reviewers will already have a history of reviewing for the  Transactions ; through S1M, AEs can see which papers each reviewer has reviewed in the past, which can be helpful to get a sense of the reviewer's load and responsiveness.

The  IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations Manual  states, in Section 8.8.2.A.4, that for all scientific articles submitted (excluding those that are prescreened), the AE shall select at least two referees who are competent and have experience in the area of the subject matter of the article. Thus, a  minimum  of two independent reviews are required for each article. Usually, though, three (and, in rare cases, four) reviews are obtained.

The process of reviewer selection in S1M is quite straightforward. There are three stages:  select  (create a list of reviewers whom you would like to invite),  invite  (actually send out letters of invitation), and  assign  (the reviewer is assigned to the paper only upon the reviewers' agreement to take on the review; this happens automatically). You will find papers in their various states in the “Associate Editor Lists” section of your AE Center: the dashboard will provide summary numbers of how many papers have a certain status.

Ordinarily, AEs should refrain from soliciting “informal reviews”; all reviews for a paper should follow the formal procedure outlined above. Occasionally, however, it may be useful to  supplement  the formal reviews with a quick and informal expert review targeting a specific aspect of the paper, or providing a broad perspective, particularly if such viewpoints are lacking in the formal reviews. Some reviewers will not respond quickly to requests, in which case some follow-up may be needed. Three business days is a normal period to allow for a response. If a reviewer who agreed to volunteer their time is no longer available or responsive, please feel free to reach out to a new reviewer.

Reviewer assignments (i.e., the complete select, invite, and assign process for at least three reviewers) should normally be completed within 10 business days of receiving the paper.

Awaiting Reviewer Scores

Reviewers are normally asked to submit their comments within 60 (calendar) days in which to carry out a first review. Some reviewers will ask for a longer period of time; if the request is reasonable, please grant it. Otherwise, please invite a different reviewer instead.

S1M will automatically send reminders to reviewers on your behalf (three days before the reminder, S1M will inform you of this, and you have the option not to send the reminder). Despite such reminders, you will certainly encounter situations where some reviewers have not uploaded a review prior to the deadline; in this case the paper will enter the “Overdue Reviewer Scores” status. Although a brief grace period can probably be granted, you should certainly follow up with the reviewers if you have not heard back from them within five business days of the missed review deadline. If the reviewer does not communicate, promptly invite another reviewer or move on to making an editorial decision. Should the promised review materialize eventually, it can be forwarded to the author at a later date. If you receive a perfunctory review, you might ask the reviewer to provide more detailed comments on a particular aspect of the paper, or simply invite yet another reviewer. Occasionally, you may need to call in a favor for a quick review from a trusted colleague, or, as a last resort, after consulting with the RE and EiC, assign the paper to yourself. Ordinarily, reviews are passed unedited to the authors; however, in rare cases—for example if you find that the review contains inflammatory language—you may wish to ask the reviewer to amend the review.

Making Decisions

Associated with each paper on S1M is a selectable value “# reviews required to make decision”: once this number of reviews has been received, the paper enters the “Awaiting AE Decision” status. Should you give up on waiting for a long-promised review, you may decrease this value, but ideally it should not drop below 2. You should strive to make an editorial decision within five business days of receiving the last review.

When handling a paper,  you  are the executive; the role of the reviewers is solely advisory. In particular, the editorial process is  not  democratic; reviewers do not get votes.  You  must weigh the input you receive, as you see fit, to arrive at an appropriate editorial decision. You should refrain from becoming a relay in a channel between the authors and reviewers, and you should not necessarily feel compelled to align yourself with the majority opinion.

Note that it will be impossible to read each paper under your purview at the same depth as a reviewer—you simply won't have enough time. Thus, to a certain extent you must rely on reviewers whose opinion you trust. You should certainly read the paper carefully enough to be able to defend your eventual decision, particularly in cases where there are conflicting reviews. You may find that you have concerns about a paper that are not reflected in any of the reviews; you can and should express these concerns in your decision letter.

Remember that your first loyalty is to the reader of the  Transactions , and that a paper can be accepted only if it is  new ,  correct , and  interesting . Your role is not that of a goal-keeper (keeping the ball out of the net), but rather that of a judge who decides whether the paper has achieved the high standard expected of papers published in the  IEEE Transactions on Information Theory . Think of yourself as a curator (from Latin,  curare , meaning “to take care”) of papers that will be archived in perpetuity, and strive to include papers in the archive only when they have something to add to the developing record of the field.

For each paper, you must arrive at an editorial decision: either accept, reject, or revise-and- resubmit . As an experienced author, you are well acquainted with the type of decision letter that is most effective. You should not simply repeat the comments of the reviewers, as the authors can read these for themselves. Always be polite. A thoughtful decision letter, like a thorough review, will be seen by the authors as helpful (even in cases when the paper is rejected). If appropriate, feel free to commend—in the decision letter itself—one or more of the reviewers for a job well done.

Writing letters that accept a paper is generally easy; the authors will certainly be happy. Rejections are more difficult. When communicating a rejection decision, please take the time to write a convincing rationale, expressed politely, but firmly. If the paper is to be rejected, reject it thoroughly. If you have doubts about the decision, or simply wish to have feedback on a draft letter, feel free to consult the Area Editor and the EiC.

In many cases, you will need to write a letter requesting a  revision  of the paper. Do so only if you genuinely believe that the paper can eventually be  revised  to a publishable state. If not, the paper should be rejected right away. You can remind the authors that they are always free to  resubmit  a rejected paper if they are able to address the concerns that were raised in the review. Request a  revision  only if the required changes are relatively minor and do not entail a material transformation of technical content; else, a new submission is warranted. Always remind the authors to include a detailed cover letter with any  revision  or  resubmission .

If indeed there is good evidence that the paper can be published after a relatively minor  revision , please give the authors clear and concrete advice as to what you expect to see. If you seek a reduction in length, give  specific  advice as to which particular sections can be reduced, and how. While the authors are, necessarily, the primary audience of a decision letter, consider writing it also for your own future reference, so that it provides a convenient record for what needs to be checked in a subsequent  revision . You should keep in mind that the EiC will also read the decision letter, and may occasionally comment.

In most cases, if a paper is returned after a relatively minor  revision , and  you  are satisfied that the authors have addressed the concerns of the reviewers, you do  not  need to send the paper out for another round of reviews. Send the paper out for subsequent rounds of review only if there remains doubt as to the acceptability of the paper.

Sometimes you may wish to give the authors an opportunity to rebut the comments of a reviewer. Revise-and- resubmit  is the usual mechanism for this. Please be clear and unambiguous about key concerns that should be addressed. The authors have the option to withdraw the paper should they be unable to address the given concern.

The Final Manuscript

At the time of accepting a paper, feel free to provide the authors with concrete advice for how they might improve the non-technical aspects of the paper. For example:

• Ask the authors to update references to available published versions of papers cited (and not just earlier preprint or arXiv versions)
• Double-check the paper for English usage
• Give specific advice, if needed, for improving the quality of figures or figure captions

When the authors return the final manuscript, examine it to ensure that the authors have not made major (unreviewed) amendments. If all looks fine, you will need to complete a Checklist, and enter the paper into the publication queue. If you deem a paper to be of potentially award-winning quality (even if it is too “fresh” to judge impact), please record this in the AE Checklist with a paragraph or two explaining your reasons, and then notify the EiC and Area Editor of your action. Such assessments are valuable for identifying deserving papers later for appropriate recognition.

The final checking stage should normally be completed within 3 business days after the final manuscript is uploaded by the authors.

Communicating with Authors

It is preferable that communication between the AEs and the authors be done through the ScholarOne workspace or directly via email. If the author/s call you or request a phone or video conference call to discuss the decision, please decline. All communication with the authors should be recorded in an email trail or on ScholarOne. If the authors are unhappy with your decision, you may let them know that they can submit an official appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. 

Last Words of Advice

The job of an Associate Editor is a difficult and lonely one. Feel free to call upon the Editor-in-Chief and Area Editor when you have need of advice or encouragement. Feel free to push back when you feel that new papers to handle have been arriving too quickly. Advise the Area Editor immediately when circumstances arise that may affect your ability to handle papers (if absolutely needed, you may request a brief—one or two month—respite from receiving new submissions). Finally, take courage; the  Transactions  reader is depending upon you!

• An S1M  Editor User Guide  is available, but most features of the system should be quite self-explanatory.
• The  IEEE PSPB Operations Manual
• LaTeX Advice for Authors Preparing Final Manuscripts . Feel free to point authors here.

The journal peer review process

Understand the journal and case study peer review process and read our tips for revising your submission.

When you have submitted your paper or case study, up to three experts in the field will review it to provide validation, quality control and added value to you in the form of constructive feedback.

Double anonymous peer review

The most common form of peer review for our journals and case studies is 'double anonymous', which keeps the process as objective as possible. Reviewers are not aware of the author’s identity, and you will not know the identity of the reviewers.

Role of the journal editor

The editor decides whether your paper fits the aims and scope of the journal, then select the reviewers and guide the paper through several revision stages.

Role of the reviewer

Your reviewers will read your paper or case study and teaching note and provide the journal editor with detailed and useful comments.

The journal review process

Download and keep your step-by-step guide (PDF).

Download infographic

What do reviewers look for?

This will vary from title to title, for example a journal with a strong research focus will put more emphasis on research methodology, while journals publishing case studies will focus on the quality of the case and accompanying teaching note.

The questions editors ask reviewers

• Does the article or case study say something original?  Does it add to the body of knowledge?
• If it is a case study, is this its first use?
• If it’s research, is the design, methodology, theoretical approach and critical review sound?
• Are the results well-presented and have they been correctly interpreted? Is the analysis sufficiently rigorous?
• Are there sufficient relevant citations?
• Are these well referenced and are other people's views credited?
• Is the submission accurate?
• Is any information missing or wrong?
• Does the title of the submission accurately reflect the contents?
• How useful would the submission be to a professional or student?
• Is it an example of “good practice”?
• If research-focused, could the study be replicated in other situations?

Tips for revising your submission

A reviewer may recommend that the editor immediately accepts or rejects a submission, or they may request revisions. We have developed some helpful tips to guide you through the revision process.

View comments as feedback

View the comments and the work required as feedback, not criticism. The peer review process is very likely double anonymous, so you don't know who your reviewers are, and they don't know who you are.

Take time to reflect

Put the comments to one side for a few days, then come back to them. You will be in a better frame of mind to appreciate exactly what is being said.

Agree a timescale

Agree a timescale with the editor to carry out the revisions, including gathering more data or reading new literature, if required. We suggest 30 days for minor revisions and 90 days to resubmit for major revisions.

Get clarity on reviewer comments

Clarify any ambiguity or contradiction in the reviewers' comments.

Plan your amendments

Decide the order in which you tackle the amendments. You might want to work through your submission chronologically, by reviewer, or perhaps attempt the more minor revisions first.

Proofread your revised work

Once you have revised your submission, proofread and spell check it again. Carefully!

Summarise your amendments

Write a covering letter to the editor, stating what you have done for each reviewer, and if you haven't done what the reviewers requested, provide detailed reasons why not.

Thank your reviewers

Thank your reviewers for their positive comments and respond graciously to constructive feedback.

Your next steps

Once you have resubmitted your paper, it will be reassigned to the same reviewers to check whether their comments have been addressed. If sufficient improvements have been made, your paper will be accepted. If not, you may be asked to perform multiple revisions or have your paper withdrawn.

You will receive an email from the journal editor with the final decision. Once accepted, your paper will be processed by our in-house team. 

Understand the publishing process

See all the steps in our journal publishing and production process and download our helpful infographic.

Promote your work

We have some great tips to help you promote your work. Find out about increasing the impact and visibility of your research.

Discover our awards

Submit your paper to our doctoral research awards or find out more about our Literati Awards for Excellence. 

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.

"Awaiting AE decision" has lasted for nearly four months. What should I do?

The status of my manuscript is "Awaiting AE decision", and it has lasted for nearly four months. I have sent two pieces of mail to AE to inquire of the status, but I have not received any reply. What does this situation mean? What should I do? ..While, I am still waiting, no reply.

• publications

• 1 Contact the editor! –  Aditya Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 6:49
• @Aditya: Should I contact the Editor in Chief? I have contacted the associate editor twice, but I did not receive any reply. –  Vicky Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 8:37
• In some journals there is a senior editor who oversees different areas; othrers simply have an editor in chief who oversees everything. Depending on the journal contact one of these to check the status of your paper. –  Aditya Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 16:57
• You may wish to clarify in your post the entire timeline of your submission. E.g., is this an initial submission? What is the total amount of time since your initial submission? On some systems, the status of a manuscript is not necessarily indicative of where it is in the system. –  Jeromy Anglim Commented Nov 22, 2016 at 1:21
• The initial version of this manuscript was submitted last year. It has gone through two rounds of peer reviews. The last version was resubmitted on May this year. I have sent a mail to EIC two days ago. He has informed the AE. Now, the only thing I can do is wait. –  Vicky Commented Nov 24, 2016 at 14:44

2 Answers 2

It could mean they're overworked or disorganized. Four months seems substantial. Maybe you could try a phone call.

• 1 Thank you for your opinion. Since I am not a native English speaker, I am afraid that I can not explain the whole things clearly through the phone. Maybe I should contact the editor in chief by e-mail and cc to AE. But I am not sure whether it is polite. This paper really means a lot to me. –  Vicky Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 8:43
• A polite email inquiry can't do any harm. (I thought you had already tried email, sorry.) –  aparente001 Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 12:27
• I have sent two mails to the AE. But I did not receive any reply. –  Vicky Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 12:31
• 5 Right, so now you propose to try emailing the editor in chief. Sure. Make it short and polite. Ex. subject=status report of (paper)? // "I'm concerned about my (date) submission, which was confirmed on (date). I have not had any news about it since.(date). I have written to (name) on (date) and (date), but have not heard back from him/her.. Can you tell me what sort of time frame to keep in mind as I am awaiting news of my submission? Thank you very much. Sincerely, (full name) It's an example, you don't have to stick to this phrasing or structure. –  aparente001 Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 12:38
• I have sent a mail to the EIC. Now, all I can do is crossing my fingers. –  Vicky Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 14:23

Four months seems unreasonable. Either the AE is on leave or having a holiday trip with family or health issues. Anything is possible. However, it is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief to deal with such delays.

I would email (a final reminder email) to EIC, AEs and journal support staff regarding this and wait for a week to hear from them back on my email. If still, they are not responding, I will email them saying that "I am withdrawing the paper from your esteemed journal. Thank you for your earlier consideration."

Please note that there is no bottom by clicking which you can withdraw the paper. So, be careful about it and try to make it as transparent as possible that you are withdrawing the paper because of the valid reason. Don't be greedy that if the paper is accepted after your mail, if at-all it gets accepted, you will go with acceptance. No, you can't. You should stick with your decision of withdrawl.

• This paper really means a lot to me. I do not think I have the courage to withdraw it. I have sent a mail to EIC two days ago. Hope it would be helpful. –  Vicky Commented Nov 24, 2016 at 14:30
• Actually, I have spent five months and one year to deal with this paper. –  Vicky Commented Nov 24, 2016 at 14:32
• Then you should wait and watch. –  Coder Commented Nov 24, 2016 at 15:25
• Yeah. Hope this paper could be accepted. Thank you for your help! –  Vicky Commented Nov 24, 2016 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• A novel (and a movie) about a village in southern France where a strange succession of events happens
• Can Ontario municipal zoning by-laws prohibit site-built tiny homes?
• Convert 8 Bit brainfuck to 1 bit Brainfuck / Boolfuck
• How to prevent my frozen dessert from going solid?
• Why does each state get two Senators?
• Did Gandalf know he was a Maia?
• Does an airplane fly less or more efficiently after an mid-flight engine failure?
• diagonal argument in latex
• Avoiding USA "gambling tax"
• How do I safely download files of an older version software I want to dissect but don't want interferring with my already installed current version?
• Second Derivative for Non standard Calculus
• What would happen if someone were to wear a breathing restriction mask when sleeping over several nights to acclimatize for mountaineering?
• How can coordinates be meaningless in General Relativity?
• Hardware debouncing of 3.3V high signal for an ESP32 turned on via optocoupler
• Proof of the principle of explosion
• What would happen if the voltage dropped below one volt and the button was not hit?
• Strange variable scope behavior when calling function recursivly
• Why doesn’t dust interfere with the adhesion of geckos’ feet?
• Does an unseen creature with a burrow speed have advantage when attacking from underground?
• In roulette, is the frequency of getting long sequences of reds lower than that of shorter sequences?
• What other marketable uses are there for Starship if Mars colonization falls through?
• Flight delayed, risk of missing connection, can I cancel and get refund?
• Why is a USB memory stick getting hotter when connected to USB-3 (compared to USB-2)?
• Why is there so much salt in cheese?