Basics of Peer Review

Thank you for your query.  As detailed on the journal’s author guidelines page, each submission is handled by a Board Member (BM) with oversight from the editorial office. If the BM deems it suitable for peer review, it will be sent out for external review and typically be seen by at least two reviewers selected by the BM. (Note: The journal doesn’t make clear who handles contacting the peer reviewers.) Once peer review is done, the BM will provide their assessment and the Subject Editor will make the final decision.  The change from “Awaiting BM assessment” to “Awaiting ED decision” suggests that your manuscript has finished its initial desk review process and has been forwarded to the editor for the next step.   However, based on the information from the journal, the next step isn’t clear. However, some possibilities are:  Rejection without peer review: The BM decided your paper is not suitable and it will not be peer reviewed. They have sent their decision to the editor. The editor will let you know the decision shortly. If rejected, they may possibly let you know other options, such as other journals for your submission.  Preliminary acceptance, peer review will take place: The...

Most journals run a “technical check” to see if a manuscript is formatted correctly and complies with journal policies. This initial screening might be to check if the manuscript is written in an acceptable language; contains the required elements such as author details, abstract, and declarations; uses the required citation style; and is within the journal’s length limits.   Some journals may even run a plagiarism check. These checks happen before the manuscript reaches the editor or reviewers. If a manuscript passes these checks, the journal editor or managing editor will consider if the manuscript is worth moving ahead. If the editor is satisfied, they will initiate the peer review process by choosing and contacting appropriate peer reviewers to evaluate the work.  In this case, however, it appears that peer review has taken place, and the editor is yet to reach a decision. A technical check at this stage does seem unusual, but different journals have different workflows and assign different terms for the various stages in the workflow. Perhaps the editorial board is reviewing the decision and the manuscript, and a technical editor needs to check the manuscript and the reviewer comments to ensure that journal standards have been followed.  ...

Dear Author,Submission statuses on the manuscript submission portals may vary from journal-to-journal. In general, the AE (Associate Editor) is assigned to check the suitability and novelty of the manuscript, and whether it should be sent out for peer review. Once the peer review process begins, the AE is responsible for overseeing communication between the author and the reviewer(s), to ensure a smooth progression and ultimately deciding the fate of the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments.In this particular case, the status "AE: Not Assigned; Submitted" simply implies that the AE is not finalized and there has been no advancement since the manuscript was submitted. Coming to present day status, the AE is still not assigned but the manuscript is undergoing peer review. It can be an indication that the Editor-in-Chief is handling the communication himself and that your manuscript has been sent for peer review.That said, there is nothing to worry about at this stage. The peer review process does take time. Wish you good luck for your publication journey.

Dear Author,Thank you for writing to us.We understand that the status of your manuscript has not changed since the resubmission and the journal has requested you to wait a little longer.We recommend you write to the journal again to inquire about the status of the manuscript and request the journal to share the tentative time to complete the peer review. There are several reasons the peer review can be delayed, one among them may the unavailability of the reviewers and handling editor.Please do not worry as peer review usually takes 2-4 months to complete, in your case it has extended a little longer. Writing to the journal in such cases will be beneficial.We hope you receive a prompt response from the journal. 

Dear Author,Thank you for your question.I completely understand your distress. It usually takes three to four months for peer review. However, if you're on a strict publication deadline, you may withdraw your submission and submit the manuscript elsewhere, bearing in mind that other journals may take just as long. I hope you hear from them soon! Should you require assistance with communicating with the journal, you may avail our journal correspondence service.I wish you the very best with your submission.

In specific situations, a researcher can choose to decline an invitation to review a paper, such as conflict of interest, lack of time, and lack of expertise or familiarity with the subject matter. Of these, the latter is critical, because you would be doing a favor to the author by not reviewing the work as you may not be able to add value or recognize major gaps. Depending on the journal, there may be different ways to decline the invitation. On the journal’s online portal, there may be a way to decline the invitation simply by clicking on the “decline” button rather than the “accept” or “continue” button. For some journals, you might need to confirm your response via email.Unfortunately, in your case, you realized that you were not the best fit for the task after you accepted the invitation and viewed the manuscript. Therefore, please get back to the journal editor without any further delay, clearly explaining your lack of expertise as a reason to withdraw from the review. To assuage the situation, you could offer suggestions of other researchers you might know who are qualified to review the manuscript instead.It is imperative to clarify this with the journal...

Thank you for your question. The number of rounds of peer review before a final decision varies depending on the reviewers' findings and recommendations and how well these are integrated. After each round, a manuscript can either be accepted, rejected, or sent back for minor or major revisions. In case authors are asked to resubmit after major revisions, journals usually conduct up to 3 rounds of peer review before deciding to not go ahead with publication.The time required for peer review varies depending on a number of factors such as the availability of peer reviewers and the existing backlog of papers for initial assessment and review. Typically, when a paper is considered for peer review, each round of peer review takes approximately 45-90 days. Desk decisions (usually rejections for reasons such as the manuscript not being a good fit for the journal) or acceptance post minor revision may happen in less time.

Thank you for your question. The number of rounds of peer review before a final decision varies depending on the reviewers' findings and recommendations and how well these are integrated. After each round, a manuscript can either be accepted, rejected, or sent back for minor or major revisions. In case authors are asked to resubmit after major revisions, journals usually conduct up to 3 rounds of peer review before deciding to not go ahead with publication.The time required for peer review varies depending on a number of factors such as the availability of peer reviewers and the existing backlog of papers for initial assessment and review. Typically, when a paper is considered for peer review, each round of peer review takes approximately 45-90 days. Desk decisions (usually rejections for reasons such as the manuscript not being a good fit for the journal) or acceptance post minor revision may happen in less time.

There are very few journals that do not give a precise timeline for completing revisions, Hindawi publishers being one of them. Depending on various factors—like number of volumes/issues published annually for a given journal, the Editorial board decides on timeline that an author is expected to revert with revisions to peer reviewers' comments. In our experience, most of the journals give a 30-day period. However, there are a few which would like to fast-track the process in order to publish the article in their next issue, so they might expect revisions within a week too.But, you need not worry in your case if journal has not mentioned a timeline, you can take your time. Responding to the peer reviewer comments is crucial for the fate of a submission, and the authors should avoid a rushed re-submission or leaving a technical gap in their revisions.As the best practice, you may consider dropping an email to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal informing the current status of your revisions and expected date of re-submission. This will definitely reduce your anxiety and leave no room for doubt. All the best for your publication!

Thank you for your question. We believe quoting the major revisions should suffice; you may clarify that you have made some minor revisions for language in addition to these (you may provide 2-3 examples, clarifying that this is not a comprehensive list of revisions, but that’s not entirely necessary), also mentioning that all revisions (the major ones quoted in the letter + the minor ones for language have been highlighted using a particular font as per the editor’s instructions. We would also encourage you to sign up for Peer Review Week 2021 celebrations by Editage. We’ll be covering topics like responding to peer review comments among others. Click here to check out our expert line-up and all the other interesting activities we have planned this year.All the best with your publication!