awaiting se assignment

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 .

• 更多 母婴 健康 历史 军事 美食 文化 星座 专题 游戏 搞笑 动漫 宠物

干货分享|IEEE旗下SCI审稿流程及状态详细解读 (附科协高质量IEEE期刊目录)~

能够成功发表一篇IEEE旗下SCI论文 (尤其是TRANS系列) 是很多电气电子工程、计算机及通信领域科研工作者的梦想。很多学者初次投稿IEEE后，会不停登录投稿系统查看状态，其实不必如此心急，只需掌握几个重要的时间节点，定期登录系统查看即可。

小编根据多年经验，本期为您全面解读IEEE旗下期刊审稿状态全流程，和大家聊聊稿件提交后到底发生了哪些事。

对于IEEE旗下不同的期刊，其对应的审稿流程以及审稿状态大体相同：

(1) Awaiting Admin Processing: 这是稿件顺利投出后的第一个状态，此时稿件由期刊秘书处理，如果稿件有问题，那么秘书会直接拒掉；如果形式审查没问题，秘书会将稿件送主编（Editor-in-chief，EIC）进一步处理。Awaiting Admin Processing状态 持续时间一般不会超过2-3个工作日。

(2)Awaiting SE Assignment: 当稿件转到EIC名下时，如果EIC判断稿件不合适，会在此状态下拒稿；如果没问题，EIC会准备分配稿件到资深编辑Senior Editor(SE)，此时状态转为Awaiting SE Assignment. 上述过程 持续时间可能2-3天也可能1-2星期， 取决于EIC以什么频率处置期刊工作。

(3)Awaiting AE Assignment: 当稿件被EIC分配到了某一SE后，状态变为Awaiting AE Assignment，SE需要考虑将稿件分给副主编Associate Editor(AE). Awaiting AE Assignment状态的 持续时间一般1-3天左右。

(4)Awaiting Reviewer Assignment: 当稿件被SE分配到了某一AE后，状态变为under review，AE开始邀请审稿人之后，稿件状态立刻变为Awaiting Reviewer Assignment. 一般在一周以内，看审稿人的回复速度；

(5)Awaiting Reviewer Scores: AE开始送外审，AE首先要邀请若干数目的外审专家，给他们发审稿邀请函， 直到凑齐足够数目的接受审稿邀请专家那一刻，评审状态才会变为Awaiting Reviewer Scores. 一般会要求审稿人 三周内给审稿意见 ，如果审稿人觉得时间不够，可以写信给主编要求延长审稿期限。

(6)Awaiting AE Recommendation: 足够数目的外审意见被提交之后，稿件状态立刻变为Awaiting AE Recommendation，AE需要结合外审专家意见形成推荐结论,一般要求AE 三周内给结果： (accept/minor/major/reject&resubmit/reject)

(7)Awaiting SE Decision: 随后提交给SE(资深编辑)，此时状态立刻变为Awaiting SE Decision或者Awaiting Preliminary Decision, 一般是1-2天；

(8)Awaiting EIC Decision: 在Awaiting Preliminary Decision状态下，需要SE形成推荐结论，随后状态变为Awaiting EIC Decision，这时候主编需要做决定，时间不一定， 一般是1-2天。 随后所有作者或者通信作者收到decision邮件。

至此一轮完整审稿就结束了，修改稿阶段流程是一样的。

二、中国科协高质量期刊--IEEE期刊目录

2019年，中国科协指导支持所属全国学会，面向各学科领域国内外科技期刊，试点发布高质量期刊分级目录，为科技工作者发表论文和科研机构开展学术评价提供参考。

2021年11月，中国科协发布了首批23个领域分级目录总汇，受到高等院校和科研机构等广泛关注。每个学科领域的期刊分为T1级、T2级和T3级三个级别： T1级表示已经接近或具备国际一流期刊，T2级是指国际知名期刊，T3级指业内认可的较高水平期刊。

2022年12月中国科协现对首版分级目录进行了增补更新，目前已发布的分级目录尚未覆盖全部学科，后续也将根据进展情况持续进行增补和修订。本期将为您带来高质量科技期刊分级目录--IEEE期刊汇总。

今天 EA-ISET:www.ea-iset.org协会 的分享就到这里啦，期待您的再次关注，祝大家科研顺利！ 返回搜狐，查看更多

Understanding the Decision Process

What happens when you receive the decision letter? After peer review, the editor will consider feedback from the reviewers and then make a decision about the article. The decision letter is delivered to the author via email.

There are three basic types of decisions: Accept, Revise, and Reject. No matter which decision you receive, be sure to read the entire decision letter carefully. Pay special attention to deadlines and next steps.

Upon acceptance, you may be asked to complete additional steps. For example, providing final high-quality files or signing a publishing agreement. Promptly complete any requested tasks to avoid publication delays.  Learn more about your role in article production .

Revise is the most common type of decision. You will be asked to make changes and submit a revised version for further consideration. The scope of the changes can range from small corrections to major rewriting. The decision letter will include the reviewers’ suggestions on how to improve the article. You should include a point-by-point reply that addresses each suggestion when you submit the revised article.

If your article is rejected, the decision letter will explain why. The letter may include suggestions for improving your article before you submit it to another publication.

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.

No recent searches

Popular Articles

Sorry! nothing found for

What does the status mean on my Sage Path account?

Modified on Thu, 18 Jul at 12:59 PM

The status tells you which stage the paper is in. Awaiting Editor Assignment is the most common status. During this stage we are inviting editors of journals to inquire if they are willing to accept your paper. This can take time as we await those responses.

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

• IEEE Xplore Digital Library
• IEEE Standards
• IEEE Spectrum

Review and Publication Process

All submitted articles will go through a pre-screening before being sent out for review. Articles may be rejected without review for any of the following reasons:

• The author(s) have not followed the IEEE guidelines for style.
• The author(s) have obviously violated IEEE Policies.
• The article is not comprehensible (in other words, so poorly written that it is unreadable).
• The subject and contents of the article do not meet the scope of the journal or a specific issue.
• The article does not meet minimum criteria for technical substance.

A manuscript may be rejected for insufficient technical substance (item #5 above) for any of the following reasons. Such a decision can be made by the Senior Editor with the concurrence of two other members of the Editorial Board.:

• The manuscript obviously shows little or no advance over the state-of-the-art in the area.
• The manuscript does not clearly show how it relates to other work in the field.
• The manuscript does not provide enough information for others to make use of the approach reported in the manuscript.
• The manuscript is a project report, not of general applicability and with little interest to readers outside of that particular project.
• The manuscript is a progress report with little new since a previous publication.
• Models presented are not validated by experimental data or by other means.
• The paper does not draw conclusions from the data presented.

Once a submitted manuscript has passed the screening described above, it is assigned to reviewers who are experts in the field to assess, using as a minimum set of criteria the “Items for Authors to Address Before Submission” listed above. Typically three reviewers are used to evaluate each manuscript; sometimes more may be used, but there will always be a minimum of two independent reviewers used for each manuscript. The reviewers’ comments will be transmitted to the authors, along with comments that may be made by the Associate Editor and/or Senior Editor regarding the manuscript, in the email transmittal of the decision made regarding the manuscript.

The Associate Editor makes a recommendation for the manuscript based upon the reviewers’ comments and his/her own assessment of the work. The Senior Editor makes a final decision based upon the Associate Editor’s recommendation, the reviewers’ comments, and his/her assessment of the manuscript. The decision can be to accept the manuscript, to request that the author(s) make minor revisions to the manuscript and submit the revision for further review, to request that the author(s) make major revisions to the manuscript and submit the revision for further review, or to reject the manuscript from further consideration for publication. A revised manuscript submitted in response to the decision will go through additional review by at least the Associate Editor and Senior Editor, and also typically by the reviewers who did the review of the original manuscript if major revisions were required. The revised manuscript can receive any of the same four decisions described above. Manuscripts which after this second review still require major revisions to reach publishable status will typically be rejected from further consideration. Thus it is advisable for authors to try to fully address all reviewers’ comments and concerns in their first revision of the manuscript. As part of that revision, authors must provide a detailed point-by-point response to each of the reviewers’ and Editors’ comments.

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.

Is it normal for a journal submission to show "awaiting assignment" for more than a month?

I submitted a paper more than one month ago. The status of my submission is still "awaiting assignment". May I ask if this is normal? How long have I to wait before formally asking the editor about the status of my submission? My field is mathematics.

• publications

• 2 It's a little unusual (but not uncommon). Sometimes it takes time to find a referee. It also depends on how busy your editor is. I would wait a few more weeks before enquiring with the journal. –  Kimball Commented Jul 18, 2014 at 1:29
• 2 This seems like a duplicate of something. Maybe academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18543/… or academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16624/… or academia.stackexchange.com/questions/24162/… –  StrongBad Commented Jul 18, 2014 at 6:57

It really depends on the journal. Have you been contacted by the editor upon receipt of your paper? 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.

• 1 There is an acknowledgement of receipt of my submission. However, I think it is computer generated. I did not received any follow-up email from the the editor. –  Kasvy Commented Jul 18, 2014 at 2:19
• 1 Then it can't hurt to send them an email inquiring. –  James Paul Mason Commented Jul 18, 2014 at 14:12

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

• Second Derivative for Non standard Calculus
• Maximizing the common value of both sides of an equation (part 2)
• Did Gandalf know he was a Maia?
• Expensive constructors. Should they exist? Should they be replaced?
• Why is a USB memory stick getting hotter when connected to USB-3 (compared to USB-2)?
• How to reconcile the effect of my time magic spell with my timeline
• Marie-Sklodowska-Curie actions: publish a part of the proposal just after the deadline?
• Is consciousness a prerequisite for knowledge?
• World Building Knowledgebase - How to write good Military World Building
• Do eternal ordinances such as the festival of unleavened bread pose a biblical contradiction?
• Why is the wiper fluid hose on the Mk7 Golf covered in cloth tape?
• Velocity dispersion of stars in galaxies
• This is where/what we have come to
• What does "if you ever get up this way" mean?
• Is loss of availability automatically a security incident?
• Word that describes someone trying to make some people hate each other
• When a star becomes a black hole do the neutrons that are squeezed together release binding energy and if so does this energy escape from the hole?
• Hardware debouncing of 3.3V high signal for an ESP32 turned on via optocoupler
• In what instances are 3-D charts appropriate?
• Risks of exposing professional email accounts?
• Can Christian Saudi Nationals visit Mecca?
• Why is the stall speed of an aircraft a specific speed?
• How to prevent my frozen dessert from going solid?
• Why doesn’t dust interfere with the adhesion of geckos’ feet?