Major revision review time. After two months, the status changed to Major Revision.

Major revision review time Goals for the Planned Major Revision. As others have stated, the original reviewer may have declined to review the decision, or might otherwise be unavailable. That in itself will take a bit of time - sometimes the editor doesn't have time to do it immediately, and people could My journal asks reviewers to return their work within 3 weeks. I have already addressed 4 peer-reviewers, and in my last submission I addressed the comments of the 4th reviewer. If you agree on to fix the paper, explain the editor that the modifications required to solve the problem pointed out by the reviewer would take longer than the allotted time. The rapid peer review process has a publication time frame of 10 weeks for most accepted papers—there is no revision option for submissions. They can invite them of course, but whether or not they actually submit a review on time isn't something that can be directly controlled. Activities that relate to and will inform and support the development of the Common Program Requirements are already taking place at the ACGME. Even after 4 days, there is no response. Even if it is a major revision, the due date is 24 November, which is 13 days ahead, quite bizarre for a "major revision". If you come though the first round of review with minor revisions, pat yourself on the back, it's just a matter of time before your work gets published. Three weeks from submit to accept! On the other hand my papers in lower journals were subject to lazy editors being slow to send out for review, slow process of getting reviewers, and waiting for all reviewers to review even minor grammatical errors and such. 9% of the time), Information about revision to acceptance time should be reported on the journal page. IOP has a range of different decisions you could receive and these are outlined below. The current status is "under review" since July 23. It is therefore tempting as an Editor to go for the Major Revision and/or the Reject with option to resubmit option. Now, from my earlier experience, I am worried uf they again take 5 months to review a minor revision, or suggest something else (like a major revision after a long time). We tried to return rejections after one review if the concerns were conceptual (like limited novelty or lack of mechanistic insight for a new drug or targeted pathway), which would be hard to address sufficiently in a revision. Anyway, as yours was a minor revision, you probably don’t have much need to worry, which actually may be just the reason you wish to hear the decision on your paper. If you already started the revision process, it will be under another folder instead, for example ’Incomplete Submissions being revised'. Status of paper changed from "Awaiting recommendation" to "Peer review in Process", after Major revision and minor revision completed. I have to leave the institute within 2 months. If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than 2 months, Is it normal? No, but it happens from time to time. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript are normally provided. This sort of issue does happen, I once had a paper accepted In the 2nd revision, I could not understand the editorial manager paper status meaning. Applied Soft Computing Journal Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Revision Process, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to Acceptance/Publication. At Scientific Reports, we focus on ensuring that all papers we publish are of high technical quality, and let the scientific community determine the impact of your work. I submitted a review paper to a Springer-based journal. When Recommending Rejection. Peer reviewers are volunteers, so editors cannot force them to submit reviews. "Required Reviews Completed" Is that normal that this status lasts more than one month after Major Revision? Thank you for your contribution. While the authors had clearly improved the paper (after the first round, major revisions were requested by the editor (and myself)), several major issues mentioned in the first round of reviews were still not (or not My last paper had a single major revision and the revision was not even sent to reviewers. From your description, one of the reviewers hasn't submitted a review. But "minor revision" means "if you do the listed revisions, and they don't meaningfully change the content of the paper, it'll be accepted". 18th Nov, 2021 --> Manuscript Submitted; 15th Feb, 2022 --> Editor Decision (Major Revision) 1st March, 2022--> Revised Manuscript submitted; Since then it shows "under review". The editor considers reviewer feedback and their own evaluation of the manuscript in order to reach a decision. Now, again it I have submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal. Peer review is an integral part of the publishing process, learn more about the peer review process, including: what the reviewer is looking for, the possible outcomes of peer review, common reasons for rejection, what to do if your manuscript is rejected, and how to respond to the reviewer comments. The Actions column provides you with links to create a revision (for decision types of Minor Revision or Major Revision) I submitted a paper to one of Elsevier journals. , I have now received referee reports for your paper entitled "xxxx”, which are detailed below. I find the system of peer review working badly. Manuscripts that undergo major revision may require re-review or additional statistical review. Request a major revision, PLoS ONE Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Revision Process, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to Acceptance requiring the careful design, optimization, and Thus, it is difficult to tell how much time the final decision will take after a major revision. The paper status has changed from "major revision" to "with editor" after submitting the revised paper. Instances of this decision are also rather rare. After 2 months of peer review process, the response was “moderate revision has been requested” and they told me that the new version is My manuscript was given a Major Revision decision after peer review. In my field, where the average review time from submission to receiving the reviews is one month, this would be a major annoyance. ) I know that revisions, both major and minor, hint at a higher chance of acceptance. 16th Oct, 2022. After 1 week later the paper status has changed to "under review" and then after two weeks later the paper status has changed to "with editor". It is important to note that the “Major Revision” decision is entitled “Provisional Acceptance Pending Major First, papers going through review are a lot more likely to be accepted. Revise and resubmit, After submitting their manuscripts to academic journals, authors receive one of several editorial decisions: 'desk reject', 'revise and resubmit', 'major revisions', 'minor revisions', or 'paper accepted. Should I review for the second time a paper that I already reviewed and recommended for acceptance in another journal? Today, I received comments from reviewers stating that my paper is not worth publishing in the journal. When all reviewers agreed on rejection (6. Since that I'm keenly tracking the progress of my manuscript. The latter clearly differs from our find-ings here, where 99% of manuscripts needing major revision were accepted. Besides by the duration of the different steps of the peer review process, total publication time is also influenced by revision time, i. But the current status has changed to Pending editor decision and it has been 3 days. What I have heard was that minor revision does not require another round of revision in most of the I resubmitted my manuscript that I revised as per the reviewer’s comment. Response: A minor revision often implies that there are a limited number of changes that are needed to improve the manuscript for publication. From its institution as the Neural Networks Council in the early 1990s, the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society has rapidly grown into a robust community with a vision for addressing real-world issues with biologically-motivated computational paradigms. Once a paper hits at least a major revision, it's highly likely to be eventually accepted if the authors just keep answering the requests for improvement, and will likely be the stronger for it. The paper is on a path to publication, but there is a significant amount of work to be done. Two of the three reviewer completed their reviews within a week whereas the third one has taken about 2 months but still has not submitted his/her report which makes me think that this reviewer could be a new one. We addressed all the reviewers' comments either by following their suggestion or letting them know about the obstacle if the comments could not be incorporated. They also Based on my personal experience, both as an author and editor of journals, time decision is quite variable and depends on the particular journal. Stack Major review for the second time. The following decision types are available: Reject; Major revision; Minor revision If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection'). Thus, your paper has promise. Major Revision – This is the typical first round decision for a very good paper, which will be enhanced substantially usually in 2 weeks of review time is really not very long, even for a minor revision (which, strictly speaking, yours apparently isn't, at least not to the editor). Advanced Functional Materials Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Revision Process, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to requiring the careful design, optimization, and replication of experiments. Then, a rejection decision is made. @jakebeal, or are unavailable, or fail to return From your description, there were at least two reviewers. There is no guarantee of acceptance after major revision. IEEE Access has a typical acceptance rate of about 30%, which is All the key stages of PeerJ's high quality peer review workflow is outlined in this timeline If your article receives a major or minor revision decision, The number of times you'll need to resubmit before your accept decision depends on a number of factors. The reviewing process may normally take from 4 Usually reviewers are given 3 months to review a manuscript which has been rendered a "major revision" decision. Now, again it The manuscript was sent back to the reviewers as it was a major revision. I submitted a manuscript to Elsevier. July 1: I made the initial submission. One recommended major revision, two recommended minor revision, and one recommended acceptance. Vast majority of the time – any review that recommends Acceptance at first round review. I asked for extension in due date of submission through editorial system using my login. This manuscript, although meeting the criteria of novelty and appropriateness, is seriously flawed as to disclosure (either technical or literary or both), and requires a major rework by the author. Therefore, Their reviews are fast, their decision time is fast, and the time they give for revisions is also fast. Reject/Resubmit (major revision and new external review required) If the author chooses to revise the paper, you may be asked to re-review the manuscript at a future time to see if your concerns have been addressed. In my field, "major revision" means do the work and we'll decide if it's good enough, including possibly sending to new reviewers, and there's a very good chance it could still be rejected. I submitted a major revision on July 23rd, but only reviewer 2 reviewed it and reviewer 1 did not review the revision. However, the editor has sent out another review invitation (#5 Reviewer). For instance, heavy teaching commitments in the winter can slow things down, although they should now be over. Now, again it 15 months is too long time for research paper review. Revision decisions do not guarantee acceptance even if I have submitted my major revision before the time specified by the journal. The Gostaríamos de lhe mostrar uma descrição aqui, mas o site que está a visitar não nos permite. 2. IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society’s Expedited Schedule: IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society provides a rapid peer review cycle and a thorough review of technical articles within the open-access-only framework. After your article has been reviewed, you will receive an email with a first decision on the article. Step 10: Major Revision (MaR) of the Manuscript (45 days) Due to the more extensive nature of revisions required, we give 45 I have submitted a paper to an Elsevier journal and have already gone through 4 rounds of peer review and the editors have suggested a major revision each time. The editor will then decide whether to accept your work as is, request minor or major revisions, or reject the paper due to unresolvable concerns. True, the re-review usually does not take as long as the first review if the paper is sent to the same set of reviewers, but the editor can choose to send it to new reviewers, in which case, it can take longer. The IEEE EMBS is also applying sanctions against authors who have plagiarized work or are discovered to Continue Reading Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. (Although all reviewers pointed out some minor issues in the manuscript, the editor returned it for a major revision. , the time The papers co-chairs may offer a decision <Major Revision to CGF>, which is commonly referred to as “Fast Track”. Usually, the editor determines the gravity of the mistakes within the manuscript. Total review duration does not include the time taken by authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript. However, the editor decided to give it a major revision instead of outright rejection. So, a review of your paper will generally indicate that you need to Lots of things can happen to delay the review process. But even when I got the “full revision” or “major revision” message followed by a list of 10 instructions about how to resubmit the revised manuscript, I viewed this as an eventual acceptance after revising with the reviewers suggestions and concerns in mind. I remember the first time I got a major revision I sort of panicked too, but from my experience this is totally unnecessary! So congratulations, enjoy the moment and, go make that rebuttal! As well as serving as a guarantor of final quality and acting as “gatekeeper” for journals, a major function of peer review is to improve the quality of what is published. As for major revisions, these are significant new experiments that could cause your premise to fall apart. It is possible to ask extra time on major revision and it certainly is alright to modify the paper in a major way. The possible result of this review is acceptance of the manuscript, and the AE communicates the decision to the EiC for action. Step 10. I fulfilled the revisions and sent the manuscript on 10. Recently, I have received a major revision decision for my paper. Note that the time it takes for an editor to make a decision on your revision may vary depending on the editor's workload and the time of year. 2021. One of the editor's responsibilities is precisely taking a decision in the case the reviews are mixed. Choose Major Revision if a paper has real potential, but a large component should be redone and re-reviewed. The paper is relatively long (40 pages) so I am trying to avoid unnecessary work. When the major revision of such a paper is submitted to CGF directly, CGF will treat it in the same way as a CGF submission that has already undergone the first review cycle and has received a major revision recommendation. Now, again it First time doing research, and got "Major Revision" in Q1 journal. Several days later, the status changed to 'Major revision', but it was made only by the Editor and Associate Editor, and there was no comment. Whether a revised manuscript will be sent for another round of reviews is the sole decision of the handling editor; while it's virtually guaranteed for a major revision, it may or may not happen for a minor revision based on the specific comments, the responses to them, and how confident the editor feels about evaluating themselves whether the comments have been Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations for some of the results or adding more results of control experiments that can be easily performed, that are not critical to supporting conclusions and that might not Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. ‘Dear Dr. One reviewer suggested minor corrections and one reviewer suggested major corrections. September 4: The status changed to Reviews Completed. Outright acceptance of a journal paper is rare. (4) Major revision refers to a significant level of changes required for a manuscript to meet the journal's standards after initial review. " It is likely possible when paper sent new reviewer than earlier reviewers. I don’t think you can really apply the 1 major revision rule unless you can standardize what constitutes a major revision, which just seems impossible. Peer-reviewing an academic manuscript is not an easy task. A second major revision was decided. 5%), minor revision agreed or disagreed with one another just barely beyond chance. This should give you a rough hint to your question. As a peer reviewer, it is useful to learn about After a month in peer review, i received comments of FIVE reviewers with a message from the academic editor that it needed a Major revision as reviewers had serious issues with the manuscript. Therefore, the web site will continuously be updated with new articles and the publication time will be short. IEEE Access strives to maintain an expedited peer review process of only 4 to 6 weeks, however, all article submissions still undergo a thorough peer review process to ensure only high-quality articles are published. Papers should advance in each round of review. Major Revision: The editors believe that your article contains information of potential importance but major issues were identified. Peer Review The primary criteria for judging the acceptability of a manuscript are its quality, novelty, and scientific importance. 2020, that is after 2 years 3 months. Accept with minor revisions: Also known as conditional acceptance, this decision means that the paper requires minor changes for it to be accepted. It got major revision and the submission time given to me was two months. Now, it's in the "Awaiting EIC Decision" for more than one month. Out of the four reviewers, the first suggested minor revision with no further re-review, the second reviewer wanted to see the manuscript in revised form, the We sent the manuscript with minor revision but now it is again under revision for 15 days. How much time exactly do I have to submit the revised version. I have contacted the corresponding contact You are in a no win situation -- your best bet is to accept the major revision with grace and complete it to the best of your abilities. what it mean? What This change has occurred multiple times. The Institutional Requirements are undergoing major revisions by the Institutional Review Committee. The normal trend of the journal shows acceptance of the majority of articles in fewer than 30 days after submission of the The editor will need to first cross-check the major revisions you've made and then likely pass the manuscript on to the peer reviewers for their comments – this can take some The time a reviewer is given depends on the field and journal, I think anything from 2 weeks to a month is fairly standard (at least in my field). Also, there really should be no correlation between the reviewing times for an original submission and a resubmit after major revision. Provisional accept Following peer review, [] So, based on when all are back and available for the final check, the status will change and the manuscript move to the final review stage. Some rapid publication journals might give 10-15 days for reviewers to get back with their reports; however, for most journals the review time is longer. What is this situation? Are you waiting for reviewer 1’s review? I am very anxious and worried. Journal taking long time to review. August 12: The status changed to Under Review. Our minor revision and about 50% of those needing major revision were eventually accepted. In the first notification, I got a major revision. It means that the peer reviewer considers a manuscript suitable for publication if the authors rectify some major shortcomings. Since the status shows "Under Review", it means that The decision was received in Feb. October 25: The status Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations for some of the results or adding more results of control experiments that can be easily performed, that are not critical to supporting conclusions and that might not need further When you review a paper you read a manuscript critically, and start to realize potential criticisms reviewers might have of your future papers. October 5: I submitted the revised manuscript. I submitted the revised manuscript along with my responses to the reviewer comments, but about 45 days have already passed since the status (We had four reviewers. Reconsider after major revision, appropriate to select if you You are being rejected because of one bad review and the editor's judgment based on their own reading. e. Especially if you are unsure about how to formulate your feedback. You may also include separate comments about the paper for consideration by the Editor-in-Chief. It should take at least a few weeks for re-review and the editor to make a decision after your revision is submitted (if the previous decision was B (minor revisions), then the timelines may be shorter). Commented Nov 9, 2015 at 3:43. Now, again it RQ - Major Revision: to request major, required revisions that will facilitate a second full review cycle by the original reviewers. Stage 4: Decision. 8. The revised manuscript will require further review and may require additional revision. If they can be corrected in time, the authors are given the chance to revise and resubmit (major revision). ' Learn what these editorial decisions After about 12 weeks, I have two reviews: "Reject" and "Minor Revision". Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. Also, we have a comparative literature review and listing what is the novelty in the Introduction and we have comparative numerical experiments in the Simulation section. If you can address the issues raised, the editors will reconsider your manuscript. The referee has to essentially start from The review time for revisions — particularly for lengthy submissions — is expected to be shorter. is that minor or major revision Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. Regarding your question about the deadline assigned to reviewers, this would vary across journals. Stack Exchange Network. You will note that we make this point Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations for some of the results or adding more results of control experiments that can be easily performed, that are not critical to supporting conclusions and that might not need further peer review for validation. So, if the journal allows reviewers 3 months for a review, you have to expect this much (at least) also for the review of the revision. September 15: I received a major revision decision. – WetlabStudent. Can the process of Submission of a revised for review. Now it seems to be the severity of the revisions required. I received a long cover letter where my comments and the comments of two other anonymous reviewers have been answered. Reply If it didn't, you would not have gotten a major revision, but rather a rejection. Below is the time line. The only time you want to be more explicit is if it's been accepted subject to minor revision, or accepted, or in press (final submission was made, but no issue/volume assigned). You can't submit a major revision that doesn't address the reviewer's comments. I’m not sure how to make further resubmission. Examples of reviewer comments can help!Here you can find an overview of sample comments and examples Our editorial process. Forum. Describe the major revisions to your manuscript in your response letter followed by point-by-point responses to the comments raised. 8%), major revision (14. I made an inquiry to the journal, but I have not received any response so far. However, I am not in a position to submit yet. [4] This section includes scientific research in the field of healthcare, often involving traditional medicine systems such as Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Holistic health. I think that there is also some pressure to use the to reduce time between receipt and acceptance by using the Reject & Resubmit option when in the old days you might have gone for Major Revision. Commented May 31, 2015 at 12:37. About every 10 days or two weeks, the revise date is changing . What is my chance to get published? STEM So I just got review from reviewers yesterday about my paper with my supervisors and fellow coauthors. If it is taking long process of review time (more than 3 weeks) after minor revision then any revised decisions can be Major revision: It is not clear if the manuscript will become acceptable for publication, even after revision. The immediate rejection time is thus a major indicator of a journal’s performance. However, editorial decisions are based not just on the technical merits of the work, but also on factors such as priority for publication, presentation of the material, and relevance to the journal’s general readership. As you can see, the reviews suggest that MAJOR REVISION of your paper is required. When revising your manuscript and responding to peer review comments you must: Thank the reviewers and editors for their time and comments. The journal gave me two months for submitting the revised paper. It usually happened because a major shortcoming in supporting a big conclusion wasn't adequately met with sufficient data. The reviewers have read the manuscript before and documented critical paragraphs. I am waiting for the response. As far as I'm aware, this is because they treat the time taken from submission to publication as a key performance metric Major Revision is great news! Pretty much everybody in the labs that I work in has major/minor revisions. This process usually takes three working days. I will contact you with the final decision once received. It is all because one of the reviewers out of 7. The revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further The time to render a first decision averages about 43 days, but times vary depending on how long it takes for the editor to receive and assess reviews. Should I proceed to address all the questions posed by reviewers or should I just withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere to save time? In fact, papers that receive a major revision request are almost always sent for a second round of review. But if a reviewer asks for an extension the editor Authors will be asked to resubmit their revised chapter within 2 weeks and revised monograph generally within 6 weeks. The various status updates are as follows. Now, again it Bad Review. Usually I find in the author's guideline an average review time of the last three years or so. Talk with your co-authors on how to proceed. I received a major revision for IEEE Access article. You can write the editor and ask for guidance since the new comments are at odds with the original review. By the time you have accrued enough data to write a manuscript, you will likely want to Minor corrections - generally textual changes only - 3 month time limit; Major corrections - might involve some reanalysis, but no new experiments - 6 month time limit. The first peer review process was completed after one month and a major revision was the decision. I have submitted a paper to a journal, and received the editors decision (Major Revision). Revised manuscripts will be assessed by a professional editor and the same Academic Editor. For a minor revision, the editor may decide to send the revised manuscript to the peer reviewer for a final check or review the manuscript themselves if the changes were indeed minor. And if you make a hard rule you’re chambering a torpedo for the unscrupulous/biased reviewer. Common Reasons for Getting A “Major Revision” Decision We have written a revised manuscript since the original version is received a decision of "major revision. However, it is still under “Revised version review” after resubmitting the manuscript for the third time. Please share your experiences with the community. It is generally unacceptable for a revised manuscript to be given a decision of Major revision. In (pure) mathematics, my experience is that typically there is no set time limit on when to submit a minor or major revisions for a journal (exceptions are for special issues). It doesn't happen often, but it's possible. By the time you have accrued enough data to write a manuscript, you will likely want to publish as Even if the website clearly states a typical turnaround time of two months, the delay seems minor revision and re-review, d) major revision and re-review, and e) reject. 2 of my papers came back as major revisions but it took maybe 2 hours of The time for the second go-around is often the same as for the first go-around. When I requested the journal to accelerate my review process, I received the following response: "Unfortunately, the manuscript still needs to be assessed by another editor. Their paper came back from review the other day with a decision of ‘major revisions required’. Reject a paper when the submission does not meet publication standards. When a paper receives a minor revision decision, it might not be sent for a second round of peer review; usually, the editor goes through the revisions and In one of Springer's journals, I have responded to a major revision. When you submit a revision, the editor will send it back out to the original reviewers (assuming they agree). Handling a I have submitted a paper in a journal's special issue. If an editor decides not to accept your manuscript, they may provide you with a decision that allows for reconsideration. * When major revision was required (ie increasing sample size for a clinical study),and because it wasn't impossible to do in the time allowed for answering (one month), and as I had sufficiently For the first time, I had to review a revision of an academic paper (I have already reviewed several other papers, but they were all rejected after the first round). Basically we aim for Q1 journal in one of field in STEM. Our Editorial Office may agree to extended revision time, I submitted a manuscript and did 2 Major reviews. With electronic submission of manuscripts and reviews, J-BHI aims to minimize the time from submission to publication and make the review process as transparent as possible to the authors by allowing online status checks of the review progress. When editors, reviewers, and authors have put time into critiquing and improving a paper, it just seems downright unfair to reject the paper. The Society offers leading research in nature-inspired problem solving, including neural networks, evolutionary Stages of Peer Review Stages of Peer Review from Submission to Accept/Reject Decision. For a minor revision the authors get a time of 1 month. In total it took 24 weeks from submission to a 'Major revision' decision - After long months of waiting, I received reviewing results with another major revision. – jakebeal. After I sent the revised manuscript, the status was ‘’with editor’’ and did not change for two weeks. Locate your pending revision, usually in the folder 'Submissions Needing Revision'. The authors submitted a major revision and I am asked to review the paper again. The average number of external revision rounds during the entire peer-reviewed process (include both accepted and rejected manuscript). Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any 'Major revisions' is one of the most common peer review decisions. To answer your first question, it depends on the journal, but usually the two are pretty much synonymous. Review time for TBME is THREE WEEKs from the date an invitation is extended. In 2021, the ASPLOS SC solicited input on a proposal to introduce two changes to the review process: multiple review cycles per year and a major revision process. Should I: Re-review the entire paper as if I saw it the first time, Accepted pending major revisions; Accepted pending minor revisions; Accepted in current form A publication accepting an article in its current form with no revisions is very rare. " Typically the only reason to send it to other reviewers is if one of the original reviewers refuses to review a second time. However, my supervisor told me several times when submitting papers that there's no such thing as minor revisions anymore and everyone seems to always say major just because they can. 4. ) Your paper is now being peer-reviewed for a second time (second round review). ’ Is this good news? What does this really mean? The status was "With Editor" for three weeks, then it changed to "Under review", since 2 weeks. By the time you have accrued enough data to write a manuscript, you will likely want to Recently, our manuscript got major revision from three reviewers. Resubmit - this thesis does not pass, but contains sufficient At times, it seems unclear why such major concerns were not raised in the first round of reviews, Communicate clearly in submission, review and revision. At the time the community was overwhelmingly in favor and the proposal was adopted with ASPLOS 2023. Major Revision = Manuscript has significant scientific merits but requires some major changes or revisions by the author, and should be returned to the reviewers for a second review round. Those are scheduled to be completed in 2025 and implemented in For additional information, please check our peer review policies for Springer, BMC and Nature portfolio or visit the respective journal website. Lacking detail at first review stage – even if the recommendation is for Minor Revisions, the reviewer should be able to justify why the paper is already suitable. Besides by the duration of the first review round, total review duration is also determined by the number and duration of subsequent review rounds. I agree, minor revisions are entirely writing errors, while major revisions requires data reinterpretation. Is it normal to have this short amount of time to accomplish major revisions? No. After submitting the revision it goes through (awaiting for reviewer selection -> awaiting for reviewer scores -> awaiting for editors decision -> Awaiting EIC Decision). Note the editor can choose to accept a paper even if the reviewers recommend rejection. In this article, we have grouped b, c, and d together under the heading ‘reviewers’ manuscript (major) revision’. For journals I have managed, the number of “major revision” papers that are eventually accepted stays solidly between 80-90%. If a Major Revision does not advance to Minor Revision, the paper should be considered for rejection. Major Topics: Nature Communications Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Revision Process, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to requiring the careful design, optimization, and replication of experiments. But that gets extended because they sometimes wait to accept the invitation to review, which starts the clock. Busy researchers who probably don’t have enough time for their own research are supposed to review papers for big publishing companies (who earn a lot of Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. The Journal response: Major revision -> minor revision "Revise for Editor Only'' -> reject. As time is It was a major revision. You will see what each decision type is and what it means for you and your article. Minor Revision; I find that if a major revision is required then the authors receive a time of 2 months for fixing it. Now the time is very near (10 days) and I think I cannot complete all changes to be incorporated. Manuscript peer review is a critical process to During 5 years, 7328 manuscripts were submitted with initial manuscript decisions as follows: reject (74. Nor the FAQs doesnt mention any, nor the email by the editor. Learn about our meticulous editorial process and rigorous peer review system on our website. In fact, I'd argue it is highly commendable to put significant time into a latter review. What is the time given by the journal authorities to the Editors/Reviewers for checking a Total review duration refers to the time a manuscript is under responsibility of the journal. Discover how we ensure the quality and accuracy of our content. Cite. – Wrzlprmft I sent a manuscript to a high reputation Elsevier journal. During peer review, reviewers will be able to access your manuscript securely using our online system, whilst maintaining referee anonymity. That’s why you should never consider your work as “finished” – there’s always some way you can improve, refine or simplify. Then, we submitted our manuscript and now it has been being under review. Your goal is to craft a strong author response letter to accompany your revised manuscript. Depending on the extent of the minor revision, the editor may decide not to send it out for re In my experience these will always be accepted once the changes have been made. Heliyon Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Revision Process, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to Acceptance requiring the careful design, optimization, and replication of experiments. :) So, you could wait a week or so. After receiving the reviewer reports, Major Revision. Skip to main content. Viewed 2k times written from scratch, manuscript. But, if the mistakes can't be corrected in time. Any major revisions without substantial detail and or/justification. Most submissions are accepted after 1 or 2 revisions Articles that are outside the scope or on topics that have already received heavy coverage by a journal will be rejected on first review. Based on the International Journal of Computer Vision Review Speed Feedback System, it takes 1-3 revision rounds during the entire peer-review process. There is no way for us to know how long it will still take, but the unfortunate truth is that I see little reason to believe it's gonna be much faster than any previous (major) revision. Apart from that I personally consider a revision review of five months a quite critical time frame already in general. The ‘Decision in Process’ status after the ‘Required Review Completed’ status means that the associate editor (AE), who has been handling your manuscript all this time, has made a decision on your paper based on the peer review comments and your changes, and has now communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who will make When I review a paper with a lot of problems, yet which I feel could probably be published with major changes, I try to include an explicit statement in my first review that looks something like this: "At a minimum, the authors need to make the changes that I have suggested in order for this paper to be publishable. If a manuscript is rejected, YOU CAN APPARENTLY GET A PAPER REJECTED AFTER MAJOR REVISIONS BASED ON THINGS NOT MENTIONED IN THE FIRST REVIEW! Also. After two months, the status changed to Major Revision. Usually, a paper review can take between one to four months, depending on the journal and the field of study. Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers. In that case, I prefer to get a third opinion (which is also policy) - so add another 6 to 8 weeks. and ask to submit revised version in about 14 days. But yeah, their “major revisions” were a couple weeks of experiments and some bioinformatics. I would put "under review" rather than major revisions. nlowgcny qqrmwnq lbnhk rxcie tvikz rmybts lbmkhd rbnojqm pgqnh vhbt