Major revision review time. I submitted a review paper to a Springer-based journal.

Major revision review time 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. Commented Nov 9, 2015 at 3:43. Particularly, you can point out wanting time to think about questions the referees suggested. I never had the chance to check if the authors improved the paper or not. It takes roughly two months. As far as I'm aware, this is because they treat the time taken from submission to publication as a key performance metric But yeah, their “major revisions” were a couple weeks of experiments and some bioinformatics. Can the process of review be so fast? 1. The first peer review process was completed after one month and a major revision was the decision. As for why this is counted as a "major revision" rather than a "minor", I have no idea. It depends upon the revised manuscript subject matter and reviewers and editors evaluation speed. Review time for TBME is THREE WEEKs from the date an invitation is extended. Contents The meaning of a 'desk-rejected' paperWhat to do if your paper is desk-rejectedThe meaning of I received a major revision for IEEE Access article. It got major revision and the submission time given to me was two months. Now the time is very near (10 days) and I think I cannot complete all changes to be incorporated. Step 10: Major Revision (MaR) of the Manuscript (45 days) Due to the more extensive nature of revisions required, we give 45 Recommendation: Major revision and re-review required Reviewer Comments Required The authors propose and demonstrate an approach for generating triangular waveforms using a single drive MZM biased at the transmission null, proper polarization control of the input CW signal to the modulator, an optical filter, and a polarizer. If you think the issues cannot be fixed (or after fixing it would be in essence a new manuscript), then the manuscript should be rejected. The authors submitted a major revision and I am asked to review the paper again. Expecteed Time for Review . The appro ach is Sufficient for major or minor revision, Imopine so. By the time you have accrued enough data to write a manuscript, you will likely want to publish as Start Date: 9/12/2024 Start Time: 3:30 PM CDT DURATION: 90 minutes DESCRIPTION: The ACGME invites designated institutional officials (DIOs), institutional coordinators, and others to attend an optional webinar hosted by the Institutional Review Committee (IRC) chair and vice chair, along with ACGME Sponsoring Institutions staff members, to learn about the proposed Is there any problem to withdraw the manuscript decided as “Major revision” and submit it to another journal? According to the decision letter, resubmission was suggested if I could follow all the comments. Reply 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. We aim to provide speedy decisions on submissions. It means that the peer reviewer considers a manuscript suitable for publication if the authors rectify some major shortcomings. Then, a rejection decision is made. 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. 1 It was a lot of work, as usual. – Wrzlprmft 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. 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. 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. The manuscript was sent back to the reviewers as it was a major revision. Should I: Re-review the entire paper as if I saw it the first time, 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. I think I can follow most of them, but I want to submit the manuscript to another journal. Vast majority of the time – any review that recommends Acceptance at first round review. " Reviews for this paper should constructively list big-picture changes that could move the paper towards a publishable state. ' Learn what these editorial decisions I was invited to review a journal paper for the first time but have some slight confusion on what should lead to a major/minor revision decision. The current status is "under review" since July 23. Only one reviewer was assigned after second revision and the paper is under review for last seven months. That email salutation, and minor variations, still gives me a jolt of adrenaline and trepidation. And if you make a hard rule you’re chambering a torpedo for the unscrupulous/biased reviewer. Earlier this year, I was about to start writing a review when my wife went into labor. I received a long cover letter where my comments and the comments of two other anonymous reviewers have been answered. 0 on the Revision Smart Form asks teams whether the revision they are submitting is a minor revision or a major revision. I submitted a review paper to a Springer-based journal. The Journal response: Major revision -> minor revision "Revise for Editor Only'' -> reject. Nature 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. Most submitted manuscripts go through a meticulous review process by several reviewers who are experts in the given subject; these reviewers may request major or minor revisions or even reject the manuscript. [4] This section includes scientific research in the field of healthcare, often involving traditional medicine systems such as Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Holistic health. ' Learn what these editorial decisions precisely mean, and how to react. It is very uncommon for manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals to be accepted directly, without a request for revision. (4) Major revision refers to a significant level of changes required for a manuscript to meet the journal's standards after initial review. The journal gives a structure 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. By the time we came back from the hospital, I had forgotten about the review, so I missed the deadline. You can't submit a major revision that doesn't address the reviewer's comments. Is it normal to have this short amount of time to accomplish major revisions? No. 2021. 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. 2020, that is after 2 years 3 months. Status of a manuscript whose required reviews are Question 3. If they can be corrected in time, the authors are given the chance to revise and resubmit (major revision). For journals I have managed, the number of “major revision” papers that are eventually accepted stays solidly between 80-90%. I submitted a paper to one of Elsevier journals. In that case, what should I mention in the cover letter? Q11: How much time do authors get to submit a revised version of their manuscripts? Also note that J-BHI only permits one major modification during the review cycle, any further major modification required for the revised paper will render your paper rejected. Recently, I have received a major revision decision for my paper. The possible result of this review is acceptance of the manuscript, and the AE communicates the decision to the EiC for action. But, it varies jounal to journal. A minor revision is generally requested as a final step before acceptance. A second major revision was decided. Now, again it This is the second time I'm asked to review a manuscript and I'm not sure when to recommend "minor" or "major" revisions. Since major revisions papers get sent back to reviewers, it seems like a major drain of reviewer, author and editorial time if such a high % of these papers get rejected. 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). First, papers going through review are a lot more likely to be accepted. Time given may just be based on reviewers What does the status from required reviews completed back to editor 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. Writing a response letter for the editor and reviewers is always a challenging process. The editor didn't contact me to ask about the review until two months after the deadline. However, the editor has sent out another review invitation (#5 Reviewer). 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. As a peer reviewer, it is useful to learn about I sent a manuscript to a high reputation Elsevier journal. I have submitted my manuscript to a Q1 journal on 29th April 2018, and I have received a "Major Revision" decision on my paper on 11th July 2018. 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. What is this situation? Are you waiting for reviewer 1’s review? I am very anxious and worried. 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. 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. Today, I received comments from reviewers stating that my paper is not worth publishing in the journal. If I read a paper and think it only has a 50/50 chance of being publishable even after substantial revision, I would tend to recommend straight rejecting it. – WetlabStudent. Only after logging in into susy I can see what the authors answered to my original review. Journal taking long time to review. Major Revision: The editors believe that your article contains information of potential importance but major issues were identified. Then after 1 or 2 weeks I got a mail notification that the paper is published. Publishing can be very frustrating. Since the status shows "Under Review", it means that The current status is "under review" since July 23. The various status updates are as follows. 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). We all understand that life happens, but you should not be surprised if your request is denied, or some odd situation arises, like a previous referee refuses to look at your manuscript again, necessitating new review, where anything can happen. But, if the mistakes can't be corrected in time. 4. The problem is, from 31st July 2018 till date (more than 5 months), the website states that my manuscript status is "With I just finished a major revision for one of my research papers. I asked for extension in due date of submission through editorial system using my login. I’ve been publishing scientific papers for almost three decades, but I frantically read through manuscript decision emails, trying to figure out whether the paper has been accepted, or at least has a shot at being published by the journal I’ve submitted it to. Nor the FAQs doesnt mention any, nor the email by the editor. You will note that we make this point RQ - Major Revision: to request major, required revisions that will facilitate a second full review cycle by the original reviewers. Depending on the extent of the minor revision, the editor may decide not to send it out for re Bad Review. Manuscripts with a Major Revision decision will be allowed 30 days to resubmit their revised manuscript. I wrote a detailed and long review on the first round and requested a minor or major revision. The editor stated You are being rejected because of one bad review and the editor's judgment based on their own reading. The normal trend of the journal shows acceptance of the majority of articles in fewer than 30 days after submission of the How long will it generally take for the re-review? Will there be any additional review? that is new reviewer`s apart from the original ones? Usually, for major revisions, the revised manuscript is sent for another round of peer The decision was received in Feb. By the time you have accrued enough data to write a manuscript, you will likely want to publish as 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. 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. The rapid peer review process has a publication time frame of 10 weeks for most accepted papers—there is no revision option for submissions. 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. Papers should advance in each round of review. As for major revisions, these are significant new experiments that could cause your premise to fall apart. For a minor revision the authors get a time of 1 month. When editors, reviewers, and authors have put time into critiquing and improving a paper, it just seems downright unfair to reject the paper. While they are in their rights to reject the revision, this is now somewhat unlikely, unless, of course, you do not do the work on the revision. The It usually happened because a major shortcoming in supporting a big conclusion wasn't adequately met with sufficient data. 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. refining the requirements, ensuring that changes are made on time, and ultimately giving the final approval. One reviewer suggested minor corrections and one reviewer suggested major corrections. Now it seems to be the severity of the revisions required. In fact, I'd argue it is highly commendable to put significant time into a latter review. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript are normally provided. The status was "With Editor" for three weeks, then it changed to "Under review", since 2 weeks. Research shows that peer-review process enhances the quality of medical research reporting . When you read the comments for the first time, they may sound overwhelmingly negative, and the revision requested may look like a 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 It is therefore tempting as an Editor to go for the Major Revision and/or the Reject with option to resubmit option. The paper is on a path to publication, but there is a significant amount of work to be done. But that gets extended because they sometimes wait to accept the invitation to review, which starts the clock. If you can address the issues raised, the editors will reconsider your manuscript. If you think the issues with the manuscript can be fixed, the authors should be given the chance to do a revision - if those are major issues, or a large number of issues, then a major revision. Major revision; Minor revision; Accept; If after peer review a manuscript is considered potentially appropriate for PLOS Medicine, a major revision is generally requested. I have already addressed 4 peer-reviewers, and in my last submission I addressed the comments of the 4th reviewer. September 15: I received a major revision decision. Giving the best answer to this question is important Marking changes as minor when they are major causes delays in the review process. What is the decision process for a typical paper? Nearly all papers fall into one of three categories: i) Rejected without review (as described above), ii) Rejected after review, and iii) a Major Revision followed by a Minor Revision followed by Accept. In my field, where the average review time from submission to receiving the reviews is one month, this would be a major annoyance. Insecure or too busy editors are also not helping. 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. Scrutinize the reviewer's comments. One of the editor's responsibilities is precisely taking a decision in the case the reviews are mixed. I submitted a major revision on July 23rd, but only reviewer 2 reviewed it and reviewer 1 did not review the revision. Even if it is a major revision, the due date is 24 November, which is 13 days ahead, quite bizarre for a "major revision". “Dear Author”. Learn about our meticulous editorial process and rigorous peer review system on our website. If a Major Revision does not advance to Minor Revision, the paper should be considered for rejection. 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 third rejected it, and the fourth suggested publication (though he also suggested us to try for a higher impact journal). If I have a window of time shortly after I am asked, then I will do it immediately. I made the necessary adjustments and resubmitted it again. Thus, it is difficult to tell how much time the final decision will take after a major revision. The median time to review a revised version of a paper is a little over 2 months. After 1 week, the submission’s status changed to "under review" and two weeks after that the status changed to "with editor". Associate Editors are requested to handle papers while aiming for a 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 * 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 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. Discover how we ensure the quality and accuracy of our content. 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. September 4: The status changed to Reviews Completed. July 1: I made the initial submission. Revision decisions do not guarantee acceptance even if You are interfering with the normal workflow of the editor and your referees. Regarding your question about the deadline assigned to reviewers, this would vary across journals. After I sent the revised manuscript, the status was ‘’with editor’’ and did not change for two weeks. In this article, we have grouped b, c, and d together under the heading ‘reviewers’ manuscript (major) revision’. Cite. 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. Therefore, Their reviews are fast, their decision time is fast, and the time they give for revisions is also fast. You’ll have 45 days to resubmit the revised manuscript for both a major or a minor revision. I have submitted the revised manuscript on July 20. Now, again it 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. After a couple of months of the peer review process, the response was “major revision has been requested”. Response: A minor revision often implies that there are a limited number of changes that are needed to improve the manuscript for publication. Minor Revisions indicates a solid manuscript that could be improved with slight revision to organization, clarity, argument, and/or other components; this recommendation typically doesn't trigger re-review but may in some instances. This extra time means your revision may not be eligible for How much Revision Time by is tanken Good peer Reviewed Journal after Status of paper changed from "Awaiting recommendation" to "Peer review in Process", after Major revision and minor revision . 1 Recommendation. Am I completely off? 'Major revisions' is one of the most common peer review decisions. What I have heard was that minor revision does not require another round of revision in most of the Congratulations. Pay attention to all the reviewers comments and suggestions. The revise and resubmit nowadays is the equivalent to "major revision" from before: journals do this to report that the time from submission to publication is short, which helps their metrics and make them more attractive. But if I'm asked to review a paper, I won't spend a week or two on it, I'll carve out 2-4 hours within the two week period to sit down and review it. I have submitted a paper to a journal, and received the editors decision (Major Revision). Even after 4 days, there is no response. I've tried to find information on Google, but there isn't really a list or something that explains the difference (or I'm just bad at Google) Usually, the editor determines the gravity of the mistakes within the manuscript. 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. How much time exactly do I have to submit the revised version. Late in 2013, I was asked to write a survey chapter for a handbook. Major Revisions (aka Revise and Resubmit) indicates a manuscript that requires significant revision to The default review time for reviewers to submit their review for first submissions is set at: 3 weeks for focused technical papers; 6 weeks for regular submissions; Major Revision. Any major revisions without substantial detail and or/justification. However, the editor decided to give it a major revision instead of outright rejection. After second revision, the submission’s status changed from "major revision" to "with editor". I have submitted my manuscript to a well-known journal on April 2, 2016. Now, again it The papers co-chairs may offer a decision <Major Revision to CGF>, which is commonly referred to as “Fast Track”. Handling a In fact, papers that receive a major revision request are almost always sent for a second round of review. I fulfilled the revisions and sent the manuscript on 10. October 25: The status "Required Reviews Completed" Is that normal that this status lasts more than one month after Major Revision? Thank you Major review for the second time. After about 80 days, I have received a 'major revisions' decision with the detailed comments of two reviewers. 2. Reconsider after major revision, appropriate to select if you 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. October 5: I submitted the revised manuscript. But the current status has changed to Pending editor decision and it has been 3 days. My journal asks reviewers to return their work within 3 weeks. After receiving the editor’s decision, I had to put aside what I’m working on at the moment and focus on the revision. In most cases, the revised manuscript is re-assigned to the original Academic Editor. If they give you major revision, you have to revise the paper thoroughly. Would you submit to a journal with a median of 30 days for a decision, or a journal with a 120 days for a decision? 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. They also Usually reviewers are given 3 months to review a manuscript which has been rendered a "major revision" decision. 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? A respectable colleague of mine (and excellent scientist and author) received two fresh reviews after major revision. If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than 2 months, Peer Review The primary criteria for judging the acceptability of a manuscript are its quality, novelty, and scientific importance. Now, again it 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. If I don't have any free time until later, in the window, I'll do it then. Round 1 revision or first review of a paper; Major Revision; Minor Revision; I find that if a major revision is required then the authors receive a time of 2 months for fixing it. Reject a paper when the submission does not meet publication standards. 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. Possibly the editor indicated "major" to mean it would go back to the referees again. 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. August 12: The status changed to Under Review. The normal trend of the journal shows acceptance of the majority of Choose Major Revision if a paper has real potential, but a large component should be redone and re-reviewed. 8. Reject/Resubmit (major revision and new external review required) – this applies to papers with good quality but require substantial changes to rectify technical problems, introduce additional results, and improve paper structure and presentations; the authors will be given up to 10 weeks (except for papers submitted to special issues In my experience these will always be accepted once the changes have been made. I have tended to all the comments and submitted my revised manuscript on 31st July 2018. Accept Conditional on Major Revision This outcome replaces "Major Revision. You can review a paper to garbage if you want. The paper is relatively long (40 pages) so I am trying to avoid unnecessary work.