awaiting reviewer assignment vs selection

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 .

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. 

论文状态在Awaiting Reviewer Selection和Assignment之间变化，到底几个意思啊？

应该是一开始选的审稿人拒绝审稿，编辑又重新选择审稿人。

这个Awaiting Reviewer Selection   和   Awaiting Reviewer Assignment 状态到底什么区别啊？怎么来回变动两次？ Awaitting reviewer selection 等待责编确定审稿专家人选 Awaiting Reviewer Assignment 责编向选定的审稿专家发送审稿邀请 来回变动2次的原因是邀请的审稿专家有人拒绝审稿，责编不得不重新拟定专家名单。 这个期刊的投稿指南上说6-8个星期就能一审结束。。可是现在时间快过了一半了。。。怎么还是这个状态？ 审稿人不给力，责编也没咒念，楼主淡定。

引用回帖: 3楼 : Originally posted by paperhunter at 2016-05-25 23:35:20 这个Awaiting Reviewer Selection   和   Awaiting Reviewer Assignment 状态到底什么区别啊？怎么来回变动两次？ Awaitting reviewer selection 等待责编确定审稿专家人选 Awaiting Reviewer Assignment 责编向 ... 恩。。。要不要发邮件询问一下 ，

还有没有人回复啊？

楼主投的是什么期刊呀？现在结果怎么样啦？我的也在awaiting reviewer selection停留好几天了

请问楼主，最后有找到审稿专家吗？有没有发邮件询问呢？我也出现这样的情况了，郁闷。。

• 网络生活 育儿交流 健康生活 有奖问答
• 资源共享 课件资源 试题资源
• 化学化工 有机 高分子 无机物化 分析 催化 工艺技术 化工设备 化工 精细化工 电化学 环境
• 专业学科 机械 物理 数学 农林 食品 地学 能源 信息科学 理工农林
• 科研生活 博后之家 专业外语 外语学习 导师招生 找工作 招聘信息 考研 考博 公务员
• 生物医药 新药研发 药学 药品生产 分子生物 微生物 动植物 生物科学 医学
• 材料 材料 材料工程 微米纳米 晶体 金属 非金属 生物材料 功能材料 复合材料
• 计算模拟 第一原理 量子化学 计算模拟 分子模拟 仿真模拟 程序语言
• 学术交流 论文投稿 基金申请 学术会议
• 出国留学 留学生活 公派出国 访问学者 海外博后 留学DIY 签证指南 出国考试 海外院所
• 注册执考 化工工程师 执业药师 执业医师 环境工程师 会计师 注册考试
• 2024年不中，不再写了 16
• 15年后，如果因为生源减少，公办高校倒闭了，里面的老师怎么安置？ 24
• 高职院校，行政楼职能部门副职是否值得做？ 19
• 强烈建议面上限制总数 31
• 在高校中年教授如何才能躺平？ 32

Copyright © 2001-2024 小木虫 意见反馈 广告投放 漏洞提交

京ICP备09032638号-13 京公安备11010800222153号 侵权举报 违法和不良信息举报：[email protected]

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 Reviewer Invitation" after "Acceptance with Minor Revision"

I have submitted an article (media and communication studies) to a ScholarOne journal. The paper was accepted with minor revision (two reviewers both recommended 'minor revision'). I revised the paper accordingly and addressed the feedbacks. After submitting the revised article for a week, a ADM was assigned and the status has changed to "awaiting reviewer invitation." Does it mean that my paper will go through another round of review with new reviewers? I was told that for paper with "minor revision," it is likely like it will not be sent back to the reviewers. Has anyone experienced similar situation?

• publications

• 1 It is completely normal for papers with minor revisions to go through more than one round of revisions. If the editors deem ir necessary and the reviewers that volunteered for the first round of the review are unavailable, they might need to invite new ones. –  Sursula Commented May 6, 2021 at 6:35

2 Answers 2

Does it mean your paper will go through another round of review? Not necessarily. It depends on whether the editor invites new reviewers. "Awaiting reviewer invitation" should strictly be a very brief status, since the time between the editor deciding to invite reviewers and the editor actually inviting reviewers should be very brief, on the order of a few minutes. The fact that you are apparently seeing this status for more than a brief moment indicates that the journal is using it as a substitute for "Editor assigned".

You can think about the timeline as so:

• Your paper is resubmitted. Status shows "Revision submitted to journal".
• Either the desk editor (i.e. the employee of the publisher assigned to the journal) or the editor-in-chief assigns an editorial board member to handle the paper. Here the status could show "Editor assigned", or it could show "awaiting reviewer invitation".
• The editorial board member could make a decision now, or they could go ahead and invite reviewers. It depends on how substantial the changes requested are, and whether the editor is able to check it himself.

I don't know what "awaiting reviewer invitation" means.

But usually, the paper with minor revision will be sent directly back to the same reviewers for the final decision. They need to check whether you revise according to their reviews.

You must log in to answer this question.

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

• Featured on Meta
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...

Hot Network Questions

• Estimate of a trigonometric product
• Pistorius: “We must be ready for war by 2029”. Why 2029?
• How do manganese nodules in the ocean sustain oxygen production without depleting over geological time scales?
• Why does the 68000 have Immediate addressing modes for byte-width instructions?
• Name of a particular post-hoc statistical fallacy
• It keeps changing!
• Can we simply remove the log term for loss in policy gradient methods?
• What's the purpose of philosophy/knowledge?
• What concerns are there with soldering stainless steel cable on electronics?
• How can I break equation in forest?
• Former manager and team keep reaching out with questions despite transferring to a new team
• Clarification on Work-Energy Theorem
• I want to create something that looks similar to the Pascal's triangle below
• Which external monitor to choose for MacBook?
• What does な mean in the interjection バカな?
• Why try to explain the unexplainable?
• Is this story of John Wesley, a horse, and a bridge true?
• Why is my internet speed slowing by 10x when using this coax cable and splitter setup?
• Rufus external (USB) Windows 10 bootable SSD is damaging intenal HDD file system
• Is it truth or not truth that Aristotle might not have written the lecture notes that are so important for philosophers?
• Who wrote the book of Job?
• Report a police emergency at home while abroad
• What type of outlet is this? and is there anything I can do with basic electrical knowhow to get it up to speed for everyday use?
• Interpretation of the intercept coefficient in GLMMs