awaiting co editor assignment

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 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 .

Popular Articles

Sorry! nothing found for

How can I check the status of my submitted paper?

Modified on Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 04:59 PM

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.

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

Popular Articles

Sorry! nothing found for

Author Manuscript Status (2)

Questions regarding manuscript status

• How do I check the status of my manuscript? Modified on 27 Apr 2023
• What does the status mean on my Sage Path account? Modified on 27 Apr 2023

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, navigating peer review: sitting and waiting – what can you do what should you do.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 17 September, 2019
• Peer Review Process

Navigating peer review: Sitting and waiting – What can you do? What should you do?

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

Related articles.

Managing peer review as an ECR: Learning to communicate effectively with editors

Charlesworth Author Services 26/03/2020 00:00:00

When peer review goes wrong: How to communicate with your target journal

Charlesworth Author Services 20/08/2019 00:00:00

Why some journals ask authors to suggest reviewers

Charlesworth Author Services 11/08/2016 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 11: Know when your article is ready for submission

Charlesworth Author Services 05/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication - Module 12: Understand the peer review process

Charlesworth Author Services 10/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication - Module 13: Navigate the revise and resubmit process

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication - Module 14: Increase your chances for publication

Charlesworth Author Services 20/04/2021 00:00:00

Navigating review

Navigating peer review: How to respond to peer reviewer comments – Minor revisions

Charlesworth Author Services 19/09/2019 00:00:00

Navigating peer review: How to respond to peer reviewer comments – Major revisions

Navigating peer review: How to respond to comments you disagree with in order to maximise your chances of acceptance

Charlesworth Author Services 20/09/2019 00:00:00

[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

• Search Search
• Submitting research
• Editing a journal
• Peer reviewing
• What's new?
• Assigning editors

Manuscripts are initially assigned to editors either manually or automatically. This is defined when the journal is set up in Snapp, and can be changed afterwards in consultation with your Publisher. Assigned editors receive an email to let them know that they have submissions, so that they can perform the suitability assessment.

Manual assignment

If your journal is set up with manual assignment, the lead editors (usually editors-in-chief) are notified of all new submissions to the journal. They can then assign each one to an appropriate handling editor. They can also assign to themselves.

Information is available to help with the selection of an editor, including:

• The topic area and keywords assigned to each editor (if provided)
• The number of submissions currently assigned to each editor
• The role assigned to each editor
• Information that the editor is currently unavailable (if provided)

Round-robin assignment 

This means that manuscripts are automatically assigned equally to lead editors (usually editors-in-chief). If the journal has a single lead editor, all manuscripts will be automatically assigned to them, so that they can perform the suitability assessment. After this check, lead editors can reassign submissions to an appropriate handling editor.

Assignment by topic

Editors are each assigned a distinct topic, and authors choose from these topics on submission of their manuscript. Each editor can be assigned a single topic only, however more than one editor can have the same topic. Assignment to an editor is done based on matching these topics, either manually by the lead editor, or by the journal’s editorial assistant.

Assignment in collections and special issues

For submissions that are associated with a collection or special issue, assignment is always manual and can be done by either the lead editor or assigning editor for the collection, or the lead editor of the journal. They can see a list of guest editors working on the collection or special issue, if applicable, and a separate list of the journal’s editors.

Information is available to help with the selection of a guest editor, including:

Snapp Campus guides for editors

• Getting started with Snapp
• Research integrity
• Assessing suitability
• Finding reviewers
• Making a decision
• Tracking progress
• Roles and permissions

Assigning a submission

• Go to the ' Tasks ' section of the dashboard.
• Choose an ' Assign submission ' task.
• Select ' Assign to me ' if you will handle it.
• If it should go to another handling editor, choose ' Assign ' next to their name.

The handling editor will receive an email letting them know they have been assigned a manuscript.

Reassigning to another editor

Lead editors can reassign manuscripts at any time.

• Go to the ' Submissions ' section on the dashboard.
• Select the submission.
• Select ' Reassign submission ' under the ' Actions ' button.
• Choose a new editor to handle the submission.

The newly assigned editor will receive an email letting them know that they have been assigned a manuscript.

Unassigning yourself from a submission

All editors can unassign themselves from handling a manuscript if they are unable to work on it.

• Select ' Unassign myself ' under the ' Actions ' button.

Lead editors will receive a task to reassign the submission to another editor.

• Open Research
• Tools & Services
• Account Development
• Sales and account contacts
• Professional
• Press office
• Locations & Contact

We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. Visit our main website for more information.

• © 2023 Springer Nature
• General terms and conditions
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Your Privacy Choices / Manage Cookies
• Accessibility
• Legal notice
• Help us to improve this site, send feedback.

How long do I await the “awaiting EIC decision”?

We submitted a paper to a journal roughly 3 months back, the paper remained under review for almost 2 months, after which upon enquiry to the AE, we received a reply that one review has been completed while the other is pending due to certain reasons. But, quickly after this, the status changed to “awaiting EIC decision” within 2 weeks and is stuck at that for 3 weeks. I have heard from my peers and other co-researchers and investigators, that the EIC decision should not be taking so long. Whether a long time at this status hints towards a negative outcome. And should we be writing to EIC enquiring about the status? if yes, what should be communicated and how?

It is good that you are keeping a close watch on your manuscript’s progress. From your side, your eagerness to get through the process is understandable. On the journal’s side, although slowly, but the manuscript seems to be progressing. Peer review is a crucial step through the process and since your process was run through double peer reviews, the amount of time taken could be justified. Also, please note that peer reviewers are quite busy too. Also, EIC decision could be pending because they may not have picked up the manuscript yet. Finally, delayed decision does not indicate a negative outcome. From the manuscript progress, it looks like there has been a good progress.

However, it is quite reasonable to write to the editor requesting an update on your manuscript. You could draft a reminder mail and reiterate the timelines that were followed for your submitted paper, and request for an update on the current status. Your tone of communication can be calm and humble, and you would know not to push them too much. All the best!

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

干货分享|IEEE旗下SCI审稿流程及状态详细解读 (附科协高质量IEEE期刊目录)~

能够成功发表一篇IEEE旗下SCI论文 (尤其是TRANS系列) 是很多电气电子工程、计算机及通信领域科研工作者的梦想。很多学者初次投稿IEEE后，会不停登录投稿系统查看状态，其实不必如此心急，只需掌握几个重要的时间节点，定期登录系统查看即可。

小编根据多年经验，本期为您全面解读IEEE旗下期刊审稿状态全流程，和大家聊聊稿件提交后到底发生了哪些事。

对于IEEE旗下不同的期刊，其对应的审稿流程以及审稿状态大体相同：

(1) Awaiting Admin Processing: 这是稿件顺利投出后的第一个状态，此时稿件由期刊秘书处理，如果稿件有问题，那么秘书会直接拒掉；如果形式审查没问题，秘书会将稿件送主编（Editor-in-chief，EIC）进一步处理。Awaiting Admin Processing状态 持续时间一般不会超过2-3个工作日。

(2)Awaiting SE Assignment: 当稿件转到EIC名下时，如果EIC判断稿件不合适，会在此状态下拒稿；如果没问题，EIC会准备分配稿件到资深编辑Senior Editor(SE)，此时状态转为Awaiting SE Assignment. 上述过程 持续时间可能2-3天也可能1-2星期， 取决于EIC以什么频率处置期刊工作。

(3)Awaiting AE Assignment: 当稿件被EIC分配到了某一SE后，状态变为Awaiting AE Assignment，SE需要考虑将稿件分给副主编Associate Editor(AE). Awaiting AE Assignment状态的 持续时间一般1-3天左右。

(4)Awaiting Reviewer Assignment: 当稿件被SE分配到了某一AE后，状态变为under review，AE开始邀请审稿人之后，稿件状态立刻变为Awaiting Reviewer Assignment. 一般在一周以内，看审稿人的回复速度；

(5)Awaiting Reviewer Scores: AE开始送外审，AE首先要邀请若干数目的外审专家，给他们发审稿邀请函， 直到凑齐足够数目的接受审稿邀请专家那一刻，评审状态才会变为Awaiting Reviewer Scores. 一般会要求审稿人 三周内给审稿意见 ，如果审稿人觉得时间不够，可以写信给主编要求延长审稿期限。

(6)Awaiting AE Recommendation: 足够数目的外审意见被提交之后，稿件状态立刻变为Awaiting AE Recommendation，AE需要结合外审专家意见形成推荐结论,一般要求AE 三周内给结果： (accept/minor/major/reject&resubmit/reject)

(7)Awaiting SE Decision: 随后提交给SE(资深编辑)，此时状态立刻变为Awaiting SE Decision或者Awaiting Preliminary Decision, 一般是1-2天；

(8)Awaiting EIC Decision: 在Awaiting Preliminary Decision状态下，需要SE形成推荐结论，随后状态变为Awaiting EIC Decision，这时候主编需要做决定，时间不一定， 一般是1-2天。 随后所有作者或者通信作者收到decision邮件。

至此一轮完整审稿就结束了，修改稿阶段流程是一样的。

二、中国科协高质量期刊--IEEE期刊目录

2019年，中国科协指导支持所属全国学会，面向各学科领域国内外科技期刊，试点发布高质量期刊分级目录，为科技工作者发表论文和科研机构开展学术评价提供参考。

2021年11月，中国科协发布了首批23个领域分级目录总汇，受到高等院校和科研机构等广泛关注。每个学科领域的期刊分为T1级、T2级和T3级三个级别： T1级表示已经接近或具备国际一流期刊，T2级是指国际知名期刊，T3级指业内认可的较高水平期刊。

2022年12月中国科协现对首版分级目录进行了增补更新，目前已发布的分级目录尚未覆盖全部学科，后续也将根据进展情况持续进行增补和修订。本期将为您带来高质量科技期刊分级目录--IEEE期刊汇总。

如有需要可SI胡编辑获取详细目录 (PDF版)~

【FREE查重】即日起 关注GZ号“欧亚学术”, 均可FREE查重论文1篇(Turnitin系统), 不限字数 ;

EA-ISET助力科研:【FREE查重】【查询分区】【期刊匹配】【论文指导】【资料下载】一次搞定~

“欧亚学术”近期热点：

1. 【IEEE录用】1区IEEE仅3个月录用，另有多本2/3区SCI仅1个月左右录用~

2. Frontiers/MDPI/Hindawi4月最新在检SCIE/SSCI期刊名单出炉 (附下载)~

3. 【Frontiers】2区SCI新刊, 自引率仅 3%, 非预警, 2个月左右录用~

4. 【新刊推荐】2023影响因子何时公布？最新预测结果出炉 (含IEEE1区TOP/CCF)~

5. 重磅！8本期刊被剔除SCIE，4月最新SCIE/SSCI目录已更新 (附下载)~

6. 【极速发表】2区SSCI仅1个月零7天录用, 1天见刊, 新增多本SCI/SSCI/EI发表案例~

7. 【学术不端】国自然基金委发布2023年首批学术不端案件处理结果通报, 七起涉“医”~

8. 【老牌优刊】1973年创刊, Elsevier旗下2区SCI, 见刊/检索仅需17天~

9. 【顺刊推荐】英文参考文献如何正确引用？(附四种常见格式及模板), 1区TOP仅22天录用~

10. 【最新进展】多本毕业快刊仅1个月左右录用(含2区SCI/SSCI/知网普刊)~

11. 科研热点| 重磅！Hindawi出版社又将撤回约1200篇论文！

12. 【官方辟谣】MDPI和Frontiers紧急发声，将对侵权者采取法律手段！

13. 一手源刊 | 4月最新SCI/SSCI/EI一览表 (含中科院1区TOP/CCF), 评职晋升必备好刊~

14. 【闭源好刊】OA期刊频繁被剔, 开源VS闭源如何选择? (2区闭源SCI仅17天录用, 4天见刊)~

15. 重磅！科睿唯安取消Frontiers in Psychology的on hold状态！

16. 科研热点 | 科睿唯安释放重磅信号: 500本期刊将被剔除？如何避雷？

17. 已审核 = 申请书被受理？NSFC项目评审全程揭秘 (附1-2区易中好刊)~

18. 新版《CCF推荐国际学术会议和期刊目录》正式发布, 2本期刊被剔除 (附目录下载)~

19. 科研热点|中科院分区表为何频繁变动？2023或将现重大变革 (附分区表/预警名单下载)~

20 投稿医学SCI, 伦理声明到底该如何写？(附模板, Frontiers旗下1区TOP仅22天录用)~

21 . 答作者问 | 论文发表过程中您关心的问题，答案都在这里！

22 . 招募 | EA-ISET审稿专家招募令，期待志同道合的你！

EA-ISET学术小贴士