awaiting referee assignment means

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

MA, Ji@UT Austin LBJ School of Public Affairs | 马季@德州大学公共事务学院

Understanding the Journal Review Process: How Associate Editors Work?

I have submitted a manuscript in mid-January; thereafter, I got another routine besides refreshing my Facebook page. The progress has been staying in “Awaiting Referee Selection” for about two months; until today, it changes to “Awaiting Referee Invitation.” I am so curious (and also frustrated) about the review process, and the following slide meets my curiosity perfectly – it will tell you how Associate Editors work.

This is an operation manual of Manuscript Central for AEs. MC is a popular manuscript processing system through which I have submitted my paper. I have embedded this file in this post, original link of this file is:

http://secure.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jjco/aemanualeng.ppt

[gview file=”http://maji.tacc.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/aemanualeng.ppt”]

After you submit your report

Once you have submitted your report your involvement in the review process may be finished. However, depending on the decisions made by the journal, you may be asked to look at a revised version of the paper.

What happens to your report?

Your report, along with that of any other referees, will be seen by the journal Editors. They will assess the referee reports and make a decision on how to proceed. If the referee reports agree, the decision will be made to either:

• accept the paper without any amendments
• ask the authors to revise the paper
• reject the paper

If the article is accepted without any amendments or is rejected outright your job will be complete. If the authors need to make revisions, you may be asked to provide further assessment of the manuscript. Some journals allow authors to appeal against a decision to reject their article. This may mean that you are asked to comment on the appeal or that a paper you have recommended for rejection is published.

If you are asked to look at a revised manuscript, a list of changes to the article may be included (this will have been provided by the author). You should judge the revised manuscript to the same quality criteria as you did the original version. If the authors have not addressed your concerns satisfactorily make this clear in your report.

Adjudications

If the referee reports do not agree the journal may consult an adjudicator. An adjudicator is a senior referee or Editorial Board member. They are asked to provide an opinion on both the article and the referee reports. If an Editorial Board member is used they may be told the names of the referees to help them make their decision, but the authors will still only see anonymous reports.

The adjudicator may agree or disagree with your assessment of the article. If an adjudicator has been used you may receive the adjudicator’s comments with any revised version of the manuscript you are asked to review. You should consider all reports during your assessment of the revised version.

Depiction of the network model for the quantum Hall spin effect in a topological insulator S Ryu, C Mudry, H Obuse and A Furusaki 2010 New Journal of Physics 12 065005.

Login |  English | Vietnamese

Tuesday, May 28, 2024

Typical workflow of a journal

Schematic overview of journal workflow

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.

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.

Also known as: with reviewers, with referees, under review, awaiting referee assignment, awaiting referee reports, awaiting reviewer scores (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 (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.

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). 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.

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.

Source:  https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like

Recently Announced

• 12 Dec 2024 Asia-Pacific Conference on Economics and Finance ‘LIVE’
• 19 Jun Beeronomics 2024
• Economics Discussion (1,116,948)
• Econometrics Discussion (70,863)
• Research / Journals (214,619)
• Political Economy & Economic Policy (226,494)
• From the blogs (48,665)
• Conferences (27,224)
• Questions from prospective grad students (157,018)
• Econ Lounge (205,248)
• Latest Research Discussion (33,434)
• Registered Users Forum (2,950)
• Teaching (54,115)
• Software and Programming for Research (18,134)
• Macroeconomics (30,100)
• Microeconomics (12,916)
• Finance Job Rumors (566,920)
• General Economics Job Market Discussion (766,157)
• Micro Job Rumors (16,855)
• Macro Job Rumors (10,858)
• European Job Market (108,208)
• China Job Market (112,469)
• Industry Rumors (50,585)
• Off Topic (3,691,051)
• Sport (106,420)
• Technology (146,317)
• Trash (67,096)
• Math Job Market (13,770)
• Math Lounge (Off Topic) (28,466)
• Sociology Discussion (4,734)
• Sociology Job Market (199)
• Sociology Lounge (Off-Topic) (90)

Political Science

• Political Science Discussion (488)
• Political Science Job Market (254)
• Political Science Lounge (Off-Topic) (153)

Job Market Wiki

• Stockholm University
• Aalto University
• Jesse Nickles
• Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control
• Review of Economic Dynamics
• Journal of Urban Economics

Complete Captcha

• 10 years - 11 posts - Latest
• Thread: 16 Goods vs 7 No Goods

"Awaiting Referee Selection"

Economist ee0f

update from "Awaiting EIC Assignment" to "Awaiting Referee Selection" in exactly 7 days. Hopefully not a desk rejection.

Economist 0403

How f**king stupid are you? If it's awaiting referee selection and has been assigned to an editor in charge, what the f**k do you think it means?

Economist daa6

I have been desk rejected with the status "Awaiting Referee Selection".

Economist 1157

Yeah...and I am with editor for three months.

it is supposed to be like 6 month long, and even up to a year?

^ says who?

Economist eb51

How f**king stupid are you? If it's awaiting referee selection and has been assigned to an editor in charge, what the f**k do you think it means? I have been desk rejected with the status "Awaiting Referee Selection".

If editors struggle to find referees, they often take it as a sign that the work is uninteresting. Could be what is going on.

Economist a7aa

I have encountered the following sequence of statuses -

aw'g ref'e sel'n - aw'g ref'e ass't - aw'g ref'e inv'n - aw'g ref'e sel'n - aw'g ref'e ass't - aw'g ref'e inv'n - aw'g ref'e ass't

How should I interpret this? Or should I? :P

Economist 0f63

So if my paper is awaiting reviewer selection for 3 months would it be sent to graduate student?

Economist 6443

To bump this thread, got desk rejected after a month of status "awaiting reviewer selection." Polite note from editors which revealed absolutely nothing about their decision.

Economist 200e

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li .

Everybody's Job Market Rumors (XJMR) | Job Market Wiki | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode

Watch CBS News

Blake Snell remains winless with Giants, focuses on positive strides while awaiting baby

Updated on: May 28, 2024 / 2:03 AM PDT / AP

When Blake Snell takes the mound, his mind is all on pitching — even with a baby on the way who will make him a first-time father.

With a no-decision for the Giants in Monday's 8-4 win against the Phillies, the reigning NL Cy Young Award winner remains winless with San Francisco since signing a $62 million, two-year contract in March. He is eager to get on a roll and is focusing on the positive strides he's making while getting to know the staff.

"I think I'm in a good place," he said, noting that along with girlfriend Haeley Mar they are prepared. "Whatever happens I feel like we'll be ready for. She knows how focused I am on pitching and how much it means to me."

Brett Wisely doubled in a key insurance run in the sixth inning after an earlier RBI single, and Patrick Bailey hit a go-ahead sacrifice fly in the fifth for San Francisco.

Randy Rodríguez (1-0) relieved and pitched two innings for his first major league win.

"I feel more confident each day and get more motivated when I see the results," he said.

Thairo Estrada's hard grounder scored the tying run in the fifth when the ball glanced off third baseman Alec Bohm's glove for an error.

Heliot Ramos added a two-run single in the seventh as the Giants won for the ninth time in 11 games, much to the delight of the holiday sellout crowd of 40,598. San Francisco was swept in a four-game series at Philadelphia from May 3-6, getting outscored 29-11.

The Phillies fought back after trailing 3-0 to go ahead 4-3. Kyle Schwarber connected for his 10th homer with a two-run drive in the third. Edmundo Sosa hit a one-out triple in the fourth, then scored the tying run moments later on Snell's wild pitch.

Johan Rojas hit a go-ahead single in the fourth to score Whit Merrifield, who reached on third baseman Matt Chapman's fielding error.

Mike Yastrzemski hit a two-run double in the second and Wisely added an RBI single one out later as San Francisco supported Snell early.

The left-hander, who is 0-3 in six career starts against the Phillies, gave up J.T. Realmuto's one-out double in the first and then Schwarber's drive. Snell struck out seven and walked two over four innings.

Snell came off the three-day paternity list Sunday, though his girlfriend hadn't given birth to their child.

Realmuto extended his career-best hitting streak to 16 games — matching the longest by a Phillies player primarily playing catcher since 1900. Stan Lopata did it from July 29 to Aug. 14, 1956, and Jimmie Wilson from April 19 to May 17, 1934.

Phillies right-hander Taijuan Walker (3-1) allowed six runs on nine hits over six innings in his 200th career start. He became the 34th active pitcher to reach 200 starts — and it just so happened his outing May 5 against San Francisco was his 200th appearance.

The Phillies lost for the third time in four games, having dropped their first series in the last 15 over the weekend at Colorado.

Giants first baseman LaMonte Wade Jr. returned to the lineup only to get injured again. He sat out Sunday's game at New York with a sore left hamstring he injured Friday against the Mets and only pinch hit Saturday, but exited in the fifth Monday after a hard slide into second on a double and strained the same hamstring.

He will undergo an MRI and is likely headed to the injured list, according to manager Bob Melvin.

"It doesn't sound great," Melvin said.

TRAINER'S ROOM

Phillies: SS Trea Turner, working back from a strained left hamstring, isn't expected to miss much additional time despite dealing with soreness in his leg that pushed back his schedule for running the bases and beginning to take live batting practice that had been expected when the team returned home later this week, according to manager Rob Thomson.

Giants: OF Michael Conforto (right hamstring strain) is increasing his running in the next couple of days and could head out on a rehab assignment later in the week. ... INF Nick Ahmed will begin taking batting practice in the coming days as he heals from a sprained left wrist. ... RHP Keaton Winn (strained forearm) threw a bullpen. ... RHP Austin Warren (Tommy John surgery) is set to throw live batting practice for the first time Tuesday in Arizona.

RHP Zack Wheeler (6-3, 2.53 ERA) pitches for the Phillies on Tuesday night. The Giants were still undecided on their starter.

AP MLB: https://apnews.com/MLB

• San Francisco Giants
• Philadelphia Phillies

Featured Local Savings

More from cbs news.

Giants give left-hander Drew Pomeranz $1 million salary with new contract

LaMonte Wade Jr. to miss four weeks with hamstring strain

Three-run, ninth-inning rally lifts Mets over Giants

San Francisco art gallery focusing on emerging artists celebrates AAPI Heritage Month

Women's Hockey

How PWHL Boston stayed alive in Finals and forced Game 5 vs. Minnesota: 5 takeaways

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Boston avoided elimination in dramatic fashion with a 1-0 double-overtime victory against Minnesota on Sunday night in Game 4 of the PWHL Finals.

The game had four, nervy, scoreless periods of hockey, but still had plenty of high-danger chances, action at both ends of the ice and a would-be series-clinching goal overturned. More than anything, it was a high-stakes goalie battle between Aerin Frankel (Boston) and Nicole Hensley (Minnesota) who combined for 51 saves heading into the final frame.

Advertisement

In the end, Alina Müller scored the first and only goal (that counted) with 1:24 left in the game in front of 13,104 fans at the Xcel Energy Center. Sophie Jaques, who was drafted by Boston and traded to Minnesota in February, appeared to score the game-winner just one minute earlier, but the goal was overturned due to goaltender interference.

PWHL Minnesota believed they had just won the first Walter Cup, but the goal was overturned for goaltender interference 😳 (via @Buccigross ) pic.twitter.com/tOuNTUCQnu — B/R Open Ice (@BR_OpenIce) May 27, 2024

Frankel returned to her clutch form with 33 saves on 33 shots.

The victory snaps a two-game losing streak for Boston and pushes the league’s best-of-five series to a decisive Game 5 on Wednesday night back in Boston.

Here are five takeaways from the game.

Better start for Boston

In Game 3 on Friday night, Boston was in a hole 59 seconds after puck drop. With their backs against the wall, and facing a series loss, Boston had a much better start on Sunday night, outshooting Minnesota 9-8 in the first period.

The team did a much better job at keeping Minnesota pinned to the boards with a more consistent forecheck and made the neutral zone a battle to get through. They won a lot of puck battles and played a really physical game, going particularly hard at Minnesota’s stars like Taylor Heise.

Minnesota only put three shots on goal in the 11 minutes of the period, and picked up a bit in the second half, but still weren’t able to get past Frankel.

On the other side of the ice, Boston had more sustained offensive zone time in the first period and tested Hensley early in the game, who was just as solid as Frankel for the majority of the game.

The no-goal

In the moments after Jaques appeared to score the series-winner, Minnesota celebrated in the corner, their sticks, gloves and helmets thrown to the ice.

And then came the review, which found Heise — who was driving the net to create the chance — collided with Frankel “on her own volition,” according to the league explanation. It was ruled no goal by the on-ice officials due to goaltender interference and the goal was overturned.

“I didn’t really know what happened, other than the fact that I was pushed, but I didn’t know who pushed me into the net, it kind of just all happened really fast,” said Frankel after the game. “Then after seeing the replay, I was confident they would overturn it.”

The thought for Minnesota fans, or players, would be that Heise was tripped or pushed into Frankel, which would negate the goaltender interference.

“When you see the replay, you slow it down, she definitely loses an edge,” said Minnesota coach Ken Klee. “It’s tough to tell if it’s from a Boston player’s stick or if she just loses an edge.”

“I had no doubt that it was goaltender interference,” said Müller, the overtime heroine. “That’s tough to get a goal overturned. The momentum is for the other team, for sure — For us.”

The Minnesota players had to go from the high of winning a championship, gather their equipment and get ready to play again. Just over one minute after the puck dropped again, Müller called game.

“That one hurt,” said Klee. “When the confetti is going and the gloves are coming off — and then you got to try to refocus real quick.”

“It’s not an easy thing to come down from by any means in an instant,” added Minnesota captain Kendall Coyne Schofield.

Klee made it clear in the postgame that the team had several chances to win the game before that moment, with 33 shots on Frankel, including 13 in both overtime periods.

“It wasn’t do-or-die for us,” he said. “We get to play another game so we’re going to regroup after this one and get back to work.

The game-winner

The game-winning goal was a perfect example of the kind of player Müller is: A 200-foot center who can put the puck in the back of the net.

On the goal, Müller forced a turnover up high in the zone, got a step on Coyne Schofield into the inner slot and picked a corner on Hensley.

Alina Muller scores off a turnover to give Boston the win to a chorus of boos from Minnesota fans pic.twitter.com/hTEtTyj3fn — CJ Fogler account may or may not be notable (@cjzero) May 27, 2024

Müller, 26, was named one of the finalists for the PWHL ’s Rookie of the Year Award and led Boston in scoring this season. Still, her five goals and 16 points in 24 games left some offense to be desired, considering her monster NCAA career at Northeastern where she scored 254 points in 159 games.

“We’ve been waiting for it all year, and I know it’s there, and I’ve been telling her that it’s there,” said Kessel. “(I’m) just so happy to see that happen and watch her grow this year.”

That was Müller’s second goal — and third point — of the postseason. Her line with Susanna Tapani — who scored two overtime winners in the semifinals — and Theresa Schafzahl have been excellent of late, and could be key in the decisive Game 5 on Wednesday night.

Aerin Frankel comes up big (again)

Sunday night was exactly what you’d expect from Frankel in a do-or-die game: 33 saves for her league-leading fifth win of the postseason, and first shutout.

Frankel was the biggest reason Boston even advanced to the Finals with 141 saves in a three-game upset sweep of Montreal . That she gave up 10 goals in her first three games of the Finals was uncharacteristic, though not entirely her fault. Some shots, she was screened, or had a tip. Others she was beaten by a great shot or good move. But still, there were plenty of those against Montreal and Frankel only yielded four goals against.

“She knows what’s at stake and this is when she really shines,” Dave Flint, the longtime Northeastern coach, told  The Athletic this week, after Boston won Game 1.

Game 4 was a return to her playoff form, particularly late in the game when she made nine saves in the third period and 13 in both overtime periods. Frankel has now played in seven overtime periods in the playoffs and not allowed a goal against for four overtime wins.

“She’s the Green Monster — tremendous,” said Boston coach Courtney Kessel. “It starts with Franks, and just her ability to stay calm through these ups and downs, her ability to keep us in games and win games for us. That’s what you want heading the championship: If you have a hot goalie, you can win.”

The special teams battle

Boston still hasn’t managed to score on the power play yet this postseason, and had four chances to do just that on Sunday night, including in both overtime periods. Boston entered the playoffs with the worst power play in the league (7.5 percent) so it shouldn’t be all that surprising it’s been flat in the playoffs too.

But the team’s penalty kill was sharp in Game 4 and helped keep the season alive with five massive kills, including two in the third period. On each third-period power play, Minnesota only got two shots on Frankel, which she turned away to keep the game 0-0 and force overtime.

(Photo: David Berding / Getty Images)

Get all-access to exclusive stories.

Subscribe to The Athletic for in-depth coverage of your favorite players, teams, leagues and clubs. Try a week on us.

Hailey Salvian is a staff writer for The Athletic covering women’s hockey and the NHL. Previously, she covered the Calgary Flames and Ottawa Senators and served as a general assignment reporter. Hailey has also worked for CBC News in Toronto and Saskatchewan. Follow Hailey on Twitter @ hailey_salvian