[email protected]
Submitted my paper. Now what?
Feb 18, 2022 | Scholarly publishing
There is something of an air of mystery as to what actually happens to your manuscript once you’ve pressed that “submit” button. It seemingly goes off into cyberspace and you are left playing the waiting game.
These days, if you’ve submitted to a journal via an online submission system, you will be able to track its progress to some extent as you will generally be able to see what stage it’s at. The names of these stages can, however, seem fairly vague and almost worse than no information at all.
So let’s translate them. There are many different submission systems and the stages a manuscript goes through during peer review does differ system to system (and, indeed, journal to journal), so for the purposes of this post we’re going to look at the most common stages of the most common submission site: ScholarOne (formally Manuscript Central).
First Steps
Initially your manuscript will go through stages such as “Awaiting Admin Checklist” and/or “Awaiting Editor Assignment” depending on how new submissions are initially checked on the journal. These stages tend to be moved through fairly swiftly as they are just the editorial team checking that your submission is suitable for peer review and then deciding which of the editors will be responsible for it during the process.
Awaiting Reviewer Selection
This is the first stage of the peer-review process and your manuscript will be here until the assigned Editor has selected some suitable experts to invite to review.
Once enough reviewers have been selected, the manuscript will move on to the next stage. If only one reviewer agrees to review and all the others decline the invitation, however, your manuscript may well return to this stage while the Editor selects more. So if you log in to check on progress several weeks after submission and find your manuscript at this stage, it doesn’t necessarily mean that no action has been taken.
Awaiting Reviewer Invitation
This means that potential reviewers have been selected, but have yet to be invited. Manuscripts quite often return to this stage if not enough of the invited reviewers accepted the invitation so further invitations need to be sent. It’s quite common for editors to select a lot of reviewers, but only invite a few at a time.
Awaiting Reviewer Assignment
This rather ambiguous stage is when reviewers have been invited, but we are waiting for the required number to agree to review. In other words, at this point, the ball is squarely in the reviewers’ court!
In an ideal world, enough of the invited reviewers will agree to review and your manuscript will move on to the next stage. In reality, however, it is quite normal for invited reviewers to be unavailable and for your manuscript to return to one of the earlier stages a couple of times.
Awaiting Reviewer Scores
This is the stage that the editorial team will be striving to get your manuscript to as swiftly as possible. If your manuscript is at this stage, then enough experts have agreed to read and evaluate it and we just need to wait for the reviewers to return their comments so that a decision can be taken.
Once through this stage, your manuscript will move on to a stage such as “Awaiting Recommendation” and/or “Awaiting Decision” and it generally won’t be long before a decision is sent to you.
So That’s It?
That’s it. There are, of course, many things that can cause delays to the process, but the majority of manuscripts move from one stage to the next fairly swiftly.
- Company information and news
- Scholarly publishing
- Testimonials
- Company Statements
- Privacy Notice
- Terms & Conditions
- Modern Slavery Statement
- Equality, Diversity & Inclusion
- Anti-Bribery Statement
No recent searches
Popular Articles
Sorry! nothing found for
How can I check the status of my submitted paper?
Modified on Mon, 24 Jun at 11:40 AM
To check the status of your submission in our system, log into your ScholarOne Manuscripts account, and click on “Author.” Under the Author Dashboard Section, click on “Submitted Manuscripts.”
Please note that the following definitions generally apply to most journals. Each journal follows its own workflow, so some terms may not apply. Please contact the journal's editorial office for clarification.
| | |
| | This means the author has successfully submitted and approved the manuscript. After this, the manuscript usually goes through a formatting check by the journal staff before it is assigned to an editor. |
| | Your submission is waiting for initial review by the editorial office. This may involve checking that the submission is within the journal's scope and adheres to submission guidelines. |
| Multiple editors may be assigned to your submission, depending on the journal's workflow. This status typically means your manuscript is awaiting assignment to an editor after the initial review of the submission. Depending on the journal's workflow, this status could also indicate when the editorial office determines if your submission is eligible for peer review. This may not apply. | |
| | It means the manuscript has been assigned to an editor and is waiting for the editor to agree to evaluate the manuscript. This may not apply. |
| This indicates that an editor has agreed to evaluate the manuscript, and the assignment is in their editorial queue. At this stage, the editor may complete their own manuscript screening and determine if it is suitable for peer review. If the manuscript does not match the journal's scope or does not meet the journal's standards, it may be returned without review or be desk rejected. | |
| If the manuscript is suitable for peer review, this step indicates that the editor is searching for viable peer reviewers. When the system shows the status “Reviewer invited,” it means that invitations have been sent out to reviewers, but they have not yet accepted the invitation. Sometimes, the tracking system may show the “Reviewer Invited” status for some time and then move back to “With Editor.” This probably means that the peer reviewers have declined the invitations, and the editor will now have to look for other reviewers. Sage Journals usually have a required minimum of two external reviews. | |
| This status means that the manuscript is under peer review. Peer review is an honorary service that requires detailed scrutiny and evaluation of the manuscript and therefore takes time. The amount of time a manuscript is in review depends on reviewer availability. Please note that other statuses may fall under this umbrella, such as "Awaiting Reviewer Scores." | |
| This status indicates that all peer reviews are completed and have been received by the editorial office. Sometimes, the editor, after going through the reviews, might feel that an additional review is required. In such cases, the status might return to “Under Review.” Once the additional review is completed, the status will return to “Required Reviews Complete.” | |
| This means that the editor is now determining a decision based on the peer reviewer's comments and their own assessment. The editor may consult the editorial board or other editorial office members if required. Once this status shows up, the author is generally informed of the editorial decision shortly afterward. |
| This indicates that a decision was made and a revision has been requested. The submission is now with the author. The author is usually given a deadline of a few weeks to a few months; this may be extended upon request. Additionally, some journals ask the author to submit a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments with their revised manuscript. | |
| This indicates that the author has submitted the revised document (and a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments, if required). The document is now awaiting a check by the journal's editorial office. | |
| It shows that the author has clicked on an action link indicating that they do not wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript. In other words, the author is not ready to make the revisions suggested and would like to withdraw their paper. This may not apply. | |
| | If submitted to a subscription journal, a completed contributor form is required after the manuscript has been accepted. Locate the manuscript and complete the form. If you have any questions, contact the editorial office. |
Please see our resources on the peer review process and tips on How to Get Published .
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
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 peer review process
When you have submitted your manuscript successfully the next step is peer review.
Types of peer review
BMJ mainly operates the following types of peer review:
- Open peer review: Reviewer and author are known to each other. These journals publish the reviewer comments and previous versions of the manuscript alongside the accepted paper.
- Single anonymised peer review: The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common.
- Double anonymised peer review: Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous to each other.
- Triple anonymised peer review: The handling editor, reviewer and author are anonymous to each other.
Each journal offers a different type of peer review, so please check on their individual websites for details.
Peer 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 .
While we aim to complete the peer review process as quickly as possible, please bear in mind that reviewers give their time voluntarily. There may be occasions where several reviewers are invited before the required number can be arranged, or when a reviewer fails to deliver a review and the invitation process needs to start again. The average time to first decision is published on each journal’s website.
Article provenance
BMJ is committed to transparency. Every article we publish includes a description of its provenance (commissioned or not commissioned) and whether it was internally or externally peer reviewed. Articles described as ‘internally peer reviewed’ will have been assessed by one or more of the journal’s editors.
- Translation
Navigating peer review: Sitting and waiting – What can you do? What should you do?
By charlesworth author services.
- Charlesworth Author Services
- 17 September, 2019
- Peer Review Process
Congratulations! You’ve submitted your article to a leading international journal (hopefully with a high impact factor ) and have checked your author area within their online submission system to see that you’re now ‘awaiting reviewer scores’. Most online systems give authors the opportunity to check on the status of submissions : it’s a good idea to log in regularly to make sure that your article is moving through the peer review process . You will see little messages like ‘awaiting editorial approval’, ‘awaiting reviewer scores’, ‘awaiting editorial board comments’ and ‘decision pending’ as your article wends its way through this process. Eventually, an editor will make a decision and you will get your paper back with comments from peer reviewers .
Should you just sit, wait and do nothing as an author as this process runs its course?
No. One of the most common kinds of questions that we are asked during our paper writing and publishing workshops is along the lines of ‘I submitted a paper to a journal three months ago and I’ve heard nothing. The system still says ‘awaiting reviewer scores’. What should I do?’. Publication speed is very important to you as an author for obvious reasons: you must write to the editor if you have no news back about peer review and a reasonable amount of time has passed.
What constitutes a ‘reasonable amount of time’?
Well, the average length of time across the publishing industry from submission to online publication is three months or 90 days. We recommend writing to your journal editor if one month has passed and your paper appears ‘stuck’ in the submission system. Publishers are also interested in speed of publication, and many will use analytics to track this by journal and sometimes even by editor – so you are not the only one in this process with a vested interest!
Writing to journal editors about your paper
Authors, especially young researchers, are often nervous about writing directly to journal editors. Don’t be: this is your paper, your research, your career, and your future. [ Get in touch with our team at Charlesworth and we can provide you with short templates for writing these kinds of emails.]
Some quick tips:
- Be polite but direct when writing to a journal editor . What’s the issue that needs to be addressed?
- Make sure your email is positive: what solution are you proposing to the issue?
For example, let’s imagine that your research paper is stuck ‘awaiting reviewer comments’ and two months have passed with no news from the journal.
‘Dear Editor: I am writing on behalf of my co-authors to enquire about the status of our paper submitted on x date, entitled y’. We see that this article is ‘awaiting reviewer comments’ and more than two months have passed: we have therefore taken the opportunity to suggest the names of some additional colleagues who would be suitable peer reviewers’.
Don’t forget to include two or three additional names and email addresses at the bottom of your short message.
It’s always a good idea to write and interact directly with journal editors. As we’ve discussed before, they are very often also busy academic researchers, running their groups, supervising students, teaching and, also, managing journals. Papers get forgotten about, reviewers are not chased. You must take the initiative as an author : editors will appreciate and understand this! Don’t be pushy. Don’t be aggressive. Always be polite, constructive and offer solutions to save the editor time .
Once, in one of our author workshops , we were asked: ‘my paper has been in review with a journal for more than a year and I’ve heard nothing. What should I do?’. It’s your career. Please don’t let this happen to you!
Read next (third) in series: Navigating peer review: How to respond to peer reviewer comments – Minor revisions
Read previous (first) in series: Navigating peer review: Making your initial submission
Charlesworth Author Services , a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.
To know more about our services, visit: Our Services
Visit our new Researcher Education Portal that offers articles and webinars covering all aspects of your research to publication journey! And sign up for our newsletter on the Portal to stay updated on all essential researcher knowledge and information!
Register now: Researcher Education Portal
Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.
Share with your colleagues
Scientific Editing Services
Sign up – stay updated.
We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
- 6 years - 7 posts - Latest - RSS
- OP: 3 Goods vs 4 No Goods
- Thread: 28 Goods vs 17 No Goods
Manuscript Central status: awaiting reviewer assignment
Sociologist fe8
Does this mean I at least passed the desk rejection phase?
Sociologist c45
Likely does, but from my history of lots of desk rejects (because I am a terrible scholar) some journals automatically go into that stage on manuscript central. Unfortunately, you still have a long wait so try to avoid refreshing for status.
Well , I'm talking about sf
Sociologist d27
If it's SF, just forget about it for at least 6 months. The status will change to "Awaiting Reviewer Scores" then probably go through a couple more cycles of "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment." It's a s**t show.
Sociologist 5a8
That's been my experience there also. If you're going to charge 50 bucks for submission, I feel like you should at least try to do better than that.
Sociologist bf9
If it's SF, just forget about it for at least 6 months. The status will change to "Awaiting Reviewer Scores" then probably go through a couple more cycles of "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment." It's a s**t show. That's been my experience there also. If you're going to charge 50 bucks for submission, I feel like you should at least try to do better than that.
$50?! s**t, ASR's only $25.
My last SF submission was $50, I think it's $25 for students, but all authors have to be students. I don't really mind so much paying (department pays it for me anyway), but if they're going to charge, they owe better service than they have been giving. My last SF submission took 4 months to go out for review, and another 3 to get the reports. That is absolutely ridiculous to charge that much and take that long to send it out. Needless to say, I won't be submitting to SF any time soon,
Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li .
Sociology Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Journal Submissions | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode
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.
Desk reject after "awaiting reviewer selections" status
I recently submitted a paper to a (not very selective) journal (Sage publications). After a week of submission, the status changed to "awaiting reviewer selections". I took this to mean that the paper has passed the desk review, since the editor is selecting reviewers. However, after a few days, I got a desk reject notification.
Is it possible to get a desk reject after the "awaiting reviewer selection" stage? Is it possible that the journal didn't find reviewers, hence rejected the paper? The rejection email gave only general feedback, hence I can't infer the exact reason.
Further, the journal submission guidelines indicated that the authors should suggest three potential reviewers. However, there was no specific field to submit this information, hence I didn't include it anywhere. Given this context, I have three questions:
Was my paper desk rejected because I didn't submit reviewer names? In general, can a paper be rejected for this/similarly trivial reason?
Do you include reviewer names in the title page/cover letter, if there is no specific field given to enter this information?
Can I re-submit to the same journal with the reviewer names included? Will it offend the editor?
- publications
- paper-submission
2 Answers 2
Is it possible to get a desk reject after the "awaiting reviewer selection" stage?
Clearly it is, as your example illustrates.
More specifically, though: You are looking for all sorts of formal reasons why the paper might have been rejected, or maybe why they wrongly rejected it. But I don't think that's the right way of thinking about it. If an editor requires you to name three reviewers but can't find the three names anywhere, then they will generally tell you so rather than making up other reasons to reject a paper. The same applies to most of the other hypotheticals you are asking about: If an editor needs some information, it is easier to just ask for it than to come up with phony reasons to reject the paper.
My take is that the editor assigned the paper to reviewers and then one of two things happened: (i) They took a closer look at the paper and realized that there is no point to ask anyone to spend time on it; (ii) one of the reviewers wrote back and said something along the lines of "If you absolutely need me to, I can spend the time and write a full review. But I've looked at this paper and it will not stand a chance to make it past reviewers; you might as well save everyone the time and effort and reject it outright because of A, B, and C".
As for re-submitting to the same journal: You can always try, but it's rarely successful in practice. Take whatever feedback you got, make the paper better, and submit it somewhere else.
Yes, that is possible. It depends on how many papers are submitted and how much space the journal has. It is not uncommon for a journal to have to reject 90% or more of the submissions. In those cases it helps everybody to reject early.
An alternative reason could be that some associate editor took control over a bunch of submissions including yours, pushed the "awaiting reviewer selections" button for all of them, and when it came time to select reviewers for your paper (s)he looked at it a bit more carefully and decided: "nope, that is not worthwhile".
I would have just contacted the journal and asked.
I would contact the editor and ask.
You must log in to answer this question.
Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications paper-submission rejection ..
- Featured on Meta
- Announcing a change to the data-dump process
- Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...
- We spent a sprint addressing your requests — here’s how it went
Hot Network Questions
- Unused Private Pension fund transfer to offspring
- Left crank arm misaligned on climb
- 2018 movie where everyone has chips in their brains and a cop used the chip to see what a suspect could see
- How to access specific entry from list of arguments, when index is provided as a letter?
- Is this circuit safe to put in my ceiling? What improvements could I make?
- How do I know if a motion is 1 dimensional or 2 dimensional?
- Is there an equivalent of caniuse for commands on posix systems?
- How much coolant drip is normal on old car without overflow tank
- Are the hangers on these joists sized and installed properly?
- A story about a personal mode of teleportation, called "jaunting," possibly in Analog or Amazing Stories
- How would I translate GPT to German?
- Bound on the number of unit vectors with the same pairwise inner products
- Is it worth it to apply to jobs that have over 100 applicants or have been posted for few days?
- Open or closed windows in a tornado?
- Alternative to isinglass for tarts or other desserts
- Homebrew DND 5e Spell, review in power, and well... utility
- Since what year would small-scale cheating have given an advantage in e.g. the World Championship?
- Is deciding to use google fonts the sort of decision that makes an entity a controller rather than a processor?
- Optoisolated and level-shifted Esp32 Input
- Can I enter Korea with 2 different passports (in separate times)
- A loan company wants to loan me money & wants to deposit $400 tin my account for verification
- Which Old World ROM machines could officially run OS X?
- Formula for bump function
- Why is this image from pianochord.org for A11 labeled as an inversion, when its lowest pitch note is an A?
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Awaiting Reviewer Assignment means the journal editor has started reaching out to potential reviewers for your manuscript. Awaiting Reviewer Selection , which is the next stage, means that the editor has received responses from multiple peer reviewers and is presently in the process of making a selection among them.
My manuscript submission status in manuscriptcentral changed from 'Awaiting Reviewer Assignment' to 'under review' last three days ago. But today suddenly the status changed back to ...
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 manuscript status has changed from "Under Review" to "Awaiting Reviewer Scores". ... " status has always meant that the paper was actually with the reviewers as opposed to with the AE waiting for the assignment; papers have been in the "Under review" status for me for several months after which they change to "Awaiting AE recommendation ...
Effective Date: 21-January-2019 Document Version: 2.7. ScholarOne Manuscripts TM. er User Guide21-January-2019INTRODUCTIONAs a Reviewer of a manuscript, your input is. a crucial part of the peer review process. This guide is intended to give an overview of the R. ScholarOne Manuscripts.THE REVIEW PROCESSThe steps below are.
First Steps. Initially your manuscript will go through stages such as "Awaiting Admin Checklist" and/or "Awaiting Editor Assignment" depending on how new submissions are initially checked on the journal. These stages tend to be moved through fairly swiftly as they are just the editorial team checking that your submission is suitable for ...
It has been 1.5 months with no change in status. I'm curious if we are still waiting for reviewers to accept the review of the manuscript, like Awaiting Reviewer Invitation, or it's different, and the reviewing process is started already. Another matter is the process of peer review from the aspect of a reviewer.
In short, the switching of the status repeatedly from "awaiting reviewer selection" to "awaiting reviewer assignment" and back implies that the editor is having a hard time finding reviewers for your paper. Related reading: What does a status change from "Awaiting reviewer score" back to "Awaiting reviewer assignment" mean?
A plausible guess is that the editorial software uses "awaiting reviewer selection" to mean that the manuscript has been received but has not been sent to a reviewer. If the manuscript is only going to be checked by an editor and not by an external reviewer, then, of course, it's in the situation I described --- received and not sent to a ...
Manuscript status: Meaning: Manuscript Submitted: This means the author has successfully submitted and approved the manuscript. After this, the manuscript usually goes through a formatting check by the journal staff before it is assigned to an editor. Awaiting Admin Processing: Your submission is waiting for initial review by the editorial office.
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.
My manuscript submission status in manuscriptcentral changed from 'Awaiting Reviewer Assignment' to 'under review' last three days ago. But today suddenly the status changed back to ...
However, finally he/she seems to have found the requisite number of reviewers and sent out review invitations to them. Once the review invitations are sent, the status changes to "Reviewers invited." Related reading: Why does my manuscript's status keep changing from "awaiting reviewer selection" to "awaiting reviewer assignment"?
Most online systems give authors the opportunity to check on the status of submissions: it's a good idea to log in regularly to make sure that your article is moving through the peer review process. You will see little messages like 'awaiting editorial approval', 'awaiting reviewer scores', 'awaiting editorial board comments' and ...
Also known as: with reviewers, with referees, under review, awaiting referee assignment, awaiting referee reports, awaiting reviewer scores, awaiting reviewer invitation , reviewers assigned, manuscript assigned to peer-reviewer/s (NPG) The initial selection of referees is usually comprised in the previous step.
Reviewer Assignment:The status "awaiting reviewer assignment" indicates that the editorial team is in the process of selecting and assigning new reviewers to evaluate your revised manuscript ...
As for your question about the "awaiting reviewer selection" status, please note that this status indicates that the journal editor is looking for peer reviewers for your paper, which means that your manuscript has cleared desk screening (congratulations!). One reason why this stage is taking long could be that the journal editor is having ...
For about 10 days or so it has been "awaiting final decision" after a few months of under review and then awaiting reviewers scores. Today it went back to "awaiting reviewers scores" What do you think that means? ... While the editing software tries to help by giving you information about the current state of your manuscript, it is often best ...
Answer: Hello Jyotirmayee - welcome to the forum! To get right into it, your (seniors') understanding of the 'Awaiting EiC Decision' in ScholarOne's Manuscript Central (called 'Decision in Process' in some other systems) is correct to some extent. The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) makes the final decision on manuscript, with the associate ...
The status will change to "Awaiting Reviewer Scores" then probably go through a couple more cycles of "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment." It's a s**t show. That's been my experience there also. If you're going to charge 50 bucks for submission, I feel like you should at least try to do better than that.
Coming to your present query, as we just indicated, this has been a slow change from 'Awaiting Reviewer Assignment' to 'Under Review.' But this could be because the associate editor (AE) may have had a challenge finding reviewers for your manuscript. ... and your manuscript is presently in peer review. So, no, this is not presently a ...
I recently submitted a paper to a (not very selective) journal (Sage publications). After a week of submission, the status changed to "awaiting reviewer selections". I took this to mean that the paper has passed the desk review, since the editor is selecting reviewers. However, after a few days, I got a desk reject notification.
I submitted my manuscript to a journal. After a short time, the status of the manuscript changed to 'Reviewer selection,' then 'Reviewer assignment', then 'Reviewer selection', and then 'Reviewer assignment' again. The status has not changed to 'Under review'. I am afraid that after this long period, the editor will reject the manuscript. So, please give me advice. Should I ...