editor assignment pending to review completed

• Chinese (Traditional)
• Springer Support
• Solution home
• Author and Peer Reviewer Support

Editorial process after submission

This article shows the editorial process after Submitting a manuscript to a journal .

Stage 1: Initial quality check

This stage includes checks on authorship, competing interests, ethics approval and plagiarism. 

We oversee this process to ensure that your manuscript contains everything our editors and peer reviewers need to perform a fair and thorough assessment of your work.

Stage 2: Editor assigned

Once your manuscript passes the initial quality check, we assign it to a member of Editorial Board, who is an active researcher in your field.

If the editor is satisfied with your work, they will choose appropriate peer reviewers to evaluate your work, taking into account several factors including expertise, experience and apparent conflicts of interest.

Stage 3: Peer review

Reviewers will assess the technical soundness and scientific validity of your methods, analysis and interpretation, all of which must be appropriate, properly conducted, ethically robust and fully supported by the data. 

For additional information, please check our peer review policies for Springer , BMC  and Nature portfolio or visit the respective journal website. 

Stage 4: Decision

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. In case of a rejection, an article transfer will be considered. 

For all subsequent steps, please check Next steps for publishing your article: What to expect after acceptance .

Related Articles

• Locate submission instructions for a Springer journal
• Submissions to Nature Journal
• Submit a manuscript with your ORCID number
• Submit a Nature Portfolio manuscript for Open Access publishing
• Submit multimedia files to be published online with your article
• Artwork submission instructions
• Rejection of your paper / manuscript

• Journal Article Publishing Support Center

To post social content, you must have a display name. The page will refresh upon submission. Any pending input will be lost.

How can I make changes to a completed review in Editorial Manager?

If a reviewer has made an error or has further comments after submitting a review, it may be possible to reopen or edit the review before the decision is sent to the author.

Once an editor has saved a decision, the existing reviewer comments are copied into the editor's form, where the editor can make changes. After that, any changes to past Reviewer Comments will not be automatically updated within the editor decision form, or the author letter. Instead, updates must be made either within the Decision form, or in the Draft Decision Letter, in order for those changes to be seen by the author.

• Log in and go to your Reviewer Main Menu.
• Select ' Completed Assignments ' and locate the completed review you wish to change. See How do I find a submission I was invited to review in Editorial Manager?
• To view your comments as submitted, select View Reviewer Comments.
• If there is no Send E-mail link, contact us via the channels at the bottom of this page.
• Customize the email text to explain why you need to make changes to your completed review.
• Select ' Preview and Send ', and then ' Send E-mail '.

The journal should respond in one of these ways:

• If the editors have not started any decision, they may be able to Reopen the review. In that case you will receive a new Reviewer Invitation letter, and it will move back to your Pending Assignments folder.
• The journal may be able to manually edit your completed review to make the changes you request.
• If the decision has already been sent to the author, it may be too late to make any changes.

If a reviewer requests changes to a completed review before the decision is sent to author, and you agree the changes should be made:

• Other statuses such as Invited, agreed to review, and Partial Review Saved are displayed as unlinked text.
• (None) could mean the reviewer was not invited for that revision, was uninvited/declined, etc.
• Reviewers that have been declined/uninvited without ever agreeing for any revision are not displayed at all in this table.
• No Decision (in red) indicates the editor assignment is still active.
• If the editor assignment was ended by some other means, such as a Skip or Termination, that is not a hyperlink.
• Just above the corresponding author, any Author Decision Letter that has been sent is displayed as a hyperlink.
• If so, the author has been notified of the decision and so changes cannot be made to the review comments.
• In that case, the editor form will have an author-facing version or reviewer comments saved. You may still be able to edit the reviewer forms as described below, but that will not automatically reflected on the version that will be sent to the author.
• Once an editor decision has been saved, authors will only see changes to reviewer comments that are done as part of Editor Decision or Author Notification steps.
• If the reviewer agreed to review, and then was terminated by an editor, a link [Terminated by Editor] appears in place of the recommendation term, selecting this allows you "Edit review comments" as described below. In this case the review status will change from Terminated to Completed when you save the review as described below.
• When you select any Reviewer Recommendation term link to open the review, you may have either one or both of these options , depending on your permission and the submission status.
• Reopen review : sends a new invitation to the reviewer so they can resubmit a new review; this is available only before a decision has been made.
• Edit Reviewer Comments : opens the review form in edit mode, allowing you to edit almost any part of the reviewer's response. You will not be able to edit the reviewer's choices for Article Transfer options .

'Reopen Review' steps

• Read the warning, then select ' OK ' to confirm the action.
• The Re-open Review and Customize Letters screen will appear.
• Select an Invitation letter.
• For example, if the reviewer requested this be done you could say 'as you requested', or if the reviewer left out an important part of the review you can add those details to the new invitation.
• Let the reviewer know they can find the review under "Pending Assignments".
• Leave any merge codes (text between %% symbols) unchanged.
• Select ' Confirm Selection and Send Letter '.
• The status may change, depending on the number of required reviews . For example, if the status was previously required reviews complete, but reopening this review lowers the number of completed reviews past the requirement, the status will revert to Under Review.
• You may want to edit the Reviewer Due date. Select the "Details" link for the submission. If you do have permission to edit review due dates, you will be able to change the date next to the reviewer's name, and then select "Save and Close" at the bottom. See here for more detailed steps.

'Edit Reviewer Comments' steps

• Read the warning , then select "OK" to reload in edit mode.
• Changes are not reversible, once you save the form the previous version cannot be recovered.
• You will not be able to view or edit the reviewer's choices for Article Transfer options .
• Select ' Save and Close ' when done with changes.

Was this answer helpful?

Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch.

Help us to help you:

Thank you for your feedback!

• Why was this answer not helpful?
• It was hard to understand / follow.
• It did not answer my question.
• The solution did not work.
• There was a mistake in the answer.
• Feel free to leave any comments below: Please enter your feedback to submit this form

Related Articles:

• How do I find a submission I was invited to review in Editorial Manager?
• How do I make a decision in Editorial Manager?
• Video Guide: Making changes to your completed review in Editorial Manager
• How do I make changes after I have submitted an article?
• What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager?

For further assistance:

Articles in this section

• How to become an author at JMIR?
• Who should be listed as author, what are your authorship criteria?
• How does the editorial oversight process and workflow look like at JMIR journals?
• Guidelines for Authors: JMIR Neurotechnology's 'NeuroTech Dialogue' Box
• How do I submit a commentary?
• How to submit to a JMIRx journal
• Submission of Articles with Existing Peer-Reviews from Other Journals (PePR pilot)
• What should be included in a cover letter?
• (for authors) Why are details about the funding of my research requested in the submission form?
• What are the Journal Sections for JMIR journals?

What happens after I submitted a revised version and my responses to reviewer comments?

• April 24, 2024 23:29

If the previous editorial decision was C (revise & re-review) or D (major revisions & re-review), the paper will be sent for re-review to the original reviewers, together with your responses. As a result of this, you may receive a further round of comments from the same reviewers.

It is JMIR policy to avoid assigning new reviewers in round 2 (3, 4, ...). If reviewers from the previous round are not available (no response or decline to re-review), then it is the task of the editor to evaluate if the comments have been addressed satisfactorily.

If the previous editorial decision was B (minor revisions), only the editor will see the author responses and will make a decision based on them.

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). 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.

• How do I respond to reviewer comments and upload a revised manuscript?
• We have submitted a revised manuscript. However, we have not received a confirmation that the manuscript was received.
• What does the peer-review process at JMIR journals look like?

Related articles

• As an author, how do I respond to reviewer comments and upload a revised manuscript (resubmission/revision of a manuscript)?
• What does the peer review process at JMIR journals look like?
• I am an author - where can I find the past reviewer comments?
• We have submitted a revised manuscript. Did you get it?
• I submitted a revised manuscript but noticed an error - how can I edit the revised manuscript?

Get the Reddit app

This subreddit is for discussing academic life, and for asking questions directed towards people involved in academia, (both science and humanities).

"Editor assignment pending" for 20 days after submission?

Hi there! I've submitted a paper to a known (Springer) journal of my field the 7th of this month. On the 12th (3 full working days!) the status on the editorial manager swithced from "article submitted" to "editor assignment pending". And it's still in this status today. Am I interpreting this correctly that in 20 days the paper hasn't even been sent to an editor?

If that's indeed the case... What should I do? My PI is starting to suggest to withdraw the paper and submit it somewhere else.

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.

What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? How should I interpret a particular submission status?

What steps does a manuscript typically go through from submission to publication (or rejection) in a typical journal? How are these steps referred to, in particular by editorial systems, and how long do they each typically take?

Note that this question is about the typical situation and hence not about:

• Journals with an atypical workflow, e.g. those that allow for an instantaneous reviewer–author interaction.
• Exceptional steps or rare occurrences such as withdrawal or clerical errors .

This is a canonical question on this topic as per this Meta post . It is usually used as a duplicate target for questions of the form: “How to interpret submission status S at journal J?”, since taking all combinations S×J would be unwieldy. Due to its nature, this question is rather broad and not exemplary for a regular question on this site. Please feel free to improve this question.

• publications
• paper-submission
• journal-workflow
• canonical-question
• "those that allow for an instantaneous reviewer–author interaction" -- is this a thing? I know of no example of this in my field, but was thinking it would be a good idea. Could you share examples? –  a3nm Commented Jul 29, 2021 at 6:31

Feel free to edit this answer to improve it, in particular to add other names you know to be used for the individual steps or to extend the maximum typical durations from your experience. The source for the diagram can be found here .

Initial Check

This step is usually performed by the journal's administrative staff. It may include for example:

• Checking for missing or broken files.
• Checking compliance with length requirements, if any.
• Checking central formatting requirements, e.g., line numbers, if required by the journal.
• A plagiarism check.
• Excluding manuscripts of very low quality, such as automatic translations or manuscripts with very poor language.

Also known as: technical check, initial QC (AIP), admin checklist (IEEE), Awaiting Editorial Office Processing (ScholarOne), quality check (NPG)

Typical duration: A few workdays.

Editor assignment or invitation

Based on the topic of the manuscript and suggestions by the authors, an editor is assigned to handle the manuscript. Depending on the journal, the assignment may be done by technical staff, the journal's chief editor, or automatic by submission category or author suggestion. With some journals, editors are invited and not assigned. An editor who is invited may decline in some cases .

Also known as: with editors (APS), editor assigned (Editorial Manager, AIP), AE assignment (IEEE), assigned to the editor (NPG)

Typical duration: A few workdays to several weeks.

Editorial assessment

The editors decide whether the paper should enter the review process or should be rejected directly, e.g., because it does not fit the journal’s scope or requirements on importance or quality. A rejection at this (or the previous) stage is called desk reject. The paper may also be returned to the authors for reasons other than rejection, such as to request more data or clearer figures prior to formal review.

With revised manuscripts, the editors assess whether the existing reviews have been addressed adequately. If yes, they either proceed with another round of reviews or jump to editorial decision immediately – this mostly depends on the magnitude and nature of the revision.

Also known as: with editors (APS), waiting for potential reviewer assignment (AIP), under review ( ScholarOne ), assigned to the editor (NPG)

Typical duration: This strongly depends on the journal: With some journals, it is less than a week; with others it may take a month, in particular if several people are involved in the decision or the initial quality hurdle is high.

Peer review

The editor selects a number of potential referees to review the manuscript. Should a referee decline to review or not perform the review in a certain time (as given by the editor or journal), the editor usually has to select a new referee. The main exception to this is if the other referees already provided sufficient reviews at this point.

With revised manuscripts, usually the reviewers from the previous round are selected. The editor may also decide that certain or all reviewers need not see the manuscript again, as their comments have been adequately addressed, or take the opportunity to seek the opinion of one or several additional referees.

Also known as: with reviewers, with referees, under review, awaiting referee assignment, awaiting referee reports, awaiting reviewer scores, awaiting reviewer invitation ( ScholarOne ), reviewers assigned , manuscript assigned to peer-reviewer/s (NPG)

The initial selection of referees is usually comprised in the previous step. Some editorial systems give the status as with editors , awaiting reviewer assignment (or similar) if a new referee needs to be assigned and no other referee is currently assigned. Others will show under review regardless.

Typical duration: This strongly depends on the field and journal. It typically ranges from a few weeks to several months , but in some cases (particularly for highly theoretical work where intense proof-checking is expected), it may be as long as one to two years. Moreover, the key factors for the duration of an individual peer-review process are how soon the reviewers perform the review and how many reviewers decline or fail to review the manuscript. Thus, even for a given journal, there is a strong variation of review durations. Some journals give their statistics on this time (or a related one) on their webpage.

Editorial decision

Based on the reviews, the editors decide whether:

• The manuscript shall be rejected.
• The manuscript needs to be revised by the authors before it can possibly be accepted. If the authors submit a revised manuscript, the workflow is mostly the same as for the initial submission.
• The manuscript shall be accepted as it is.
• A decision requires further reviews.

Note that the editor might not always wait for all reviews to be returned before making a decision.

Also known as with editors (APS), review completed, required reviews completed ( Elsevier Editorial System (EES) ), awaiting AE recommendation , awaiting decision (ScholarOne), awaiting EiC decision (IEEE), Editor Decision Started (AIP), Decision Started (NPG), or pending decision (Bioinformatics Oxford journal). This may be followed by a short stage denoted decision letter being prepared (or similar).

Typical duration: A few workdays to a week. This may take longer with some journals, in particular if several people are involved in the decision.

Copy editing and typesetting

The article is copy-edited and typeset by the publisher. Occasionally, requests to the authors may occur at this stage, e.g., due to low-quality figures.

For some journals, a pre-copy-editing version of the manuscript will be put online at this point under a category like Just Accepted, with a warning that the current version has not yet been copy-edited and may change further before publication.

Also known as: in production, in press

Typical duration: This mostly depends on the publisher’s backlog – between a few workdays to over a year, roughly correlated with the length of the publication delay (see below).

Final proofreading

The authors are sent the paper’s proofs, i.e., the paper as it is about to be published. If corrections are necessary, it goes back to copy editing and typesetting.

Also known as: proofs with authors , Galley proof

Typical duration: Most journals request proofs to be returned within a certain time, usually between 48 hours and a week ( reasons ).

Publication

For some journals, particularly newer ones with an online-centric publication model, an article will be published immediately after the previous step has been completed. If the article is subject to an Article Processing Charge (APC) or other publication fees, publication will typically only occur after the applicable fees have been paid or waived.

Other journals with a more traditional process will queue up the publication for collation into a journal issue with other articles. The time before this issue is published depends on the size of the journal’s publication backlog and can range anywhere from a few weeks to several years.

Many journals with an issue-based delay provide “online early” access to articles so that they are available to the community before the final issue date. Articles thus often acquire two publication dates: one for online and one for print publication.

Further reading

• IOP Publishing: An introductory guide for authors
• IEEE: Peer Review and Decision Process for Authors
• The secret lives of manuscripts (American Naturalist)
• List of events in Editorial Manager
• It might be useful to update this to account for this question: academia.stackexchange.com/q/177378/75368 –  Buffy Commented Oct 31, 2021 at 20:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications journals paper-submission journal-workflow canonical-question ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• Could a transparent frequency-altering material be possible?
• Can front gear be replaced on a Retrospec Judd folding bicycle?
• How would I say the exclamation "What a [blank]" in Latin?
• How to make D&D easier for kids?
• Can I get a refund for ICE due to cancelled regional bus service?
• DSP Puzzle: Advanced Signal Forensics
• Simple Container Class
• Tombs of Ancients
• Sets of algebraic integers whose differences are units
• Computations in coordinates of Hamiltonian vector fields
• Exception handling: is one exception type sufficient?
• How is Victor Timely a variant of He Who Remains in the 19th century?
• Is there any legal justification for content on the web without an explicit licence being freeware?
• "All due respect to jazz." - Does this mean the speaker likes it or dislikes it?
• Cleaning chain a few links at a time
• What is the meaning of '"It's nart'ral" in "Pollyanna" by Eleanor H. Porter?
• Would the category of directed sets be better behaved with the empty set included, or excluded?
• Is it consistent with ZFC that the real line is approachable by sets with no accumulation points?
• How will the ISS be decommissioned?
• Where can I access records of the 1947 Superman copyright trial?
• What to do if you disagree with a juror during master's thesis defense?
• Navigation on Mars without Martian GPS
• Font shape warnings in LuaLaTeX but not XeLaTeX
• How to produce this table: Probability datatable with multirow