Submission Process

In journal submission forms, Institution refers to the specific university, company, or organization you belong to, while Affiliation describes your formal association with that organization. Usually, the Institution is the parent organization (e.g., "Harvard University"), and the Affiliation includes your specific department (e.g., "Department of Biology")   This distinction is made In case the research was done via an organization different from one’s present organization (for whatever reason) To allow the journal editor to identify peer reviewers that do not have the same affiliation, in order to avoid a conflict of interest What to enter under "Institutition" In the Institution field, you should enter the name of your present university or organization, where you are studying or working, as the case may be. As you mentioned ‘company,’ in case you are working in a corporate organization (in an industry job), you need to mention the name of this organization. What to enter under "Affiliation" For the Affiliation field, you should enter the name of your department in your university/organization, and if space permits, you may include the section name too. In which case, you need to first include the section name and then the department name with a comma separating...

An academic summary is usually written by describing in brief the study’s purpose, methods, key findings, and conclusions. To write an effective summary, you have to read the paper critically, highlight important aspects, and rewrite them into a single paragraph. A summary may or may not contain headings, depending on journal guidelines. You may also need to use non-technical language if your journal asks for a "plain-language summary" or "lay summary". How to Write a Summary of a Research Paper: Step by Step Writing a research paper summary becomes easier when you break it into stages. Follow these four steps: Read the paper actively and take notes. Do not skim. Read the abstract, introduction, and conclusion first to get a sense of the paper's purpose. Then read the full text, underlining the main claim, key methods, and central findings. Note the author's thesis in your own words. Identify the thesis and key supporting points. Ask: What problem does this paper address? What did the researchers do? What did they find? What do they conclude? Your summary should answer all four questions. Leave out minor details, examples, and raw data. Write in your own words using signal phrases. Do not copy...

Your concern is completely understandable. The instance you're facing is part of a larger shift in academic publishing. Publishers are pushing toward more transparency and early sharing, and they're building these options into their submission systems. The challenge can be that the decision points aren't always clear when you're clicking through a submission form. First, let’s address Springer Nature’s In Review service. According to Springer Nature's own documentation, preprints posted through In Review cannot be removed. So, when you opt into this service, you’re agreeing that your manuscript will be posted permanently and publicly on the Research Square platform. Once it's posted, it will be available with a DOI and becomes a permanent part of the scholarly record that people can read, cite, and comment on. This feature is seen as beneficial because it gives your work early visibility, allows you to update funders, and enables the broader community to see and potentially comment on new studies. One important thing to note is that opting in or out of In Review does not influence the editorial decision of acceptance of your manuscript. If you submit revisions during the review process and the journal is open access, those revised versions can...

You should disclose any personal, financial, or other relationships that may appear to be influencing or influencing your work.

Manuscript status indicators and related timelines depend on the publisher and journal to some extent. “Awaiting Production Checklist” is a term used by some academic journals during the publication process. This is the stage where the manuscript is queued for printing/online publication. In other words, your paper is nearing publication! The status “Awaiting Production Checklist” typically indicates that the manuscript has been accepted for publication, and it has been through the initial copyediting and formatting stages to prepare it for typesetting and final production. It could also mean that the journal’s production team is waiting for the authors to complete and submit a “Production Checklist” or similar checklist/questionnaire. This checklist requires authors to confirm that the manuscript title, author names, affiliations are correct; provide any final updates or corrections; sign off on any copyright transfer agreements, etc.Did you receive such a list (perhaps as a clickable link), and if so, did you fill it up and send it back? Once authors submit the completed checklist, the production team can proceed to finalize the manuscript formatting and move it into the publication production workflow. If the “Awaiting Production Checklist” status has disappeared from the manuscript tracking, it likely means you submitted...

Manuscript status indicators and related timelines depend on the publisher and journal to some extent. “Awaiting Production Checklist” is a term used by some academic journals during the publication process. This is the stage where the manuscript is queued for printing/online publication. In other words, your paper is nearing publication! The status “Awaiting Production Checklist” typically indicates that the manuscript has been accepted for publication, and it has been through the initial copyediting and formatting stages to prepare it for typesetting and final production. It could also mean that the journal’s production team is waiting for the authors to complete and submit a “Production Checklist” or similar checklist/questionnaire. This checklist requires authors to confirm that the manuscript title, author names, affiliations are correct; provide any final updates or corrections; sign off on any copyright transfer agreements, etc.Did you receive such a list (perhaps as a clickable link), and if so, did you fill it up and send it back? Once authors submit the completed checklist, the production team can proceed to finalize the manuscript formatting and move it into the publication production workflow. If the “Awaiting Production Checklist” status has disappeared from the manuscript tracking, it likely means you submitted...

Submission portals may differ in terms of the submission statuses they use, so it would be difficult to provide a definitive answer without consulting with the journal editors. However, this status seems to indicate that your paper has cleared the 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.

Submission portals may differ in terms of the submission statuses they use, so it would be difficult to provide a definitive answer without consulting with the journal editors. However, this status seems to indicate that your paper has cleared the 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.

Dear Author,Thank you for writing in to us. I understand that having both "under review" and "evaluating recommendation" together one below the other is somewhat confusing. Typically, "Evaluating recommendation" indicates that the reviews for your paper are complete and the Associate Editor (AE) is evaluating the reviewer suggestions to arrive at a decision about your paper.The previous status is a little unclear as it is not evident whether "Under review" refers to an external review (review by peer reviewers) or an internal review (journal editor reviews the paper to determine if it can be sent for peer review).Given that both "evaluating recommendation" and "under review" are mentioned together on the page, it is possible that the paper has just undergone peer review and the AE of the journal is now evaluating the reviewer recommendations (whether it should be rejected, accepted, conditionally accepted, etc.)The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief. I suggest waiting for a couple of weeks and in case there is no change, you can follow up with the journal.I wish you all the very best with your submission.

Thank you for your question.Pending approval usually means that a decision about your paper has been made and this decision is pending approval from the Editor in Chief, who usually has the final say. If the journal doesn't get back to you in a few weeks, you may follow up with them about their decison.I wish you the very best.