COVID-19: We're Serious About Safe Travel     READ MORE >

Journal > Awaiting Reviewer Agreement

Awaiting Reviewer Agreement

April 8th, 2021

I put my manuscript in a magazine. After a short period of time, the status of the manuscript changed to `review selection`, then `Reviewer` assignment, then `Selecting reviewers`, and then again `review assignment`. The status has not changed to “verification.” I fear that after all this time, the publisher will reject the manuscript. So, please, give me some advice. Should I remove the manuscript from the magazine or suggest to the publisher a number of reviews from different countries? I mean, thank you very much. The frequency with which your manuscript status has been changed to “Waiting Reviewer Assignment” and then “Awaiting Reviewer Selection” reflects the challenge to which the publisher has the required number of publishers (usually two or three) for peer review. This could be explained by the approach of the holidays; frequent changes in status may reflect frequent changes in withdrawal plans by potential evaluators. It may also be that some evaluators who have been contacted may not have been able to accept the audit because of a conflict of interest or a discrepancy with a subject. Never mind.

A frequent change in this status does not mean that the publisher will reject the manuscript; It just means it`s going to take longer. So I wouldn`t suggest removing the manuscript now. They could wait until mid-January, that is, after the holidays. In the meantime, as you said with great thought, you could write to the publisher and suggest alternative reviews. It also shows how proactively you think about your manuscript and how eager you are to publish it. Good luck! The “Awaiting Referee Selection” status generally means that the manuscript is awaiting peer review. This means that the first verification of the manuscript is complete, which means that the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) and/or associate editor (AE) believe that the manuscript meets basic criteria such as novelty of the research, quality of writing, compliance with the volume of the review and compliance with the journal`s guidelines. So you`ve decided to send the manuscript for peer review and you`re now looking for appropriate experts (also known as referees) for your journal.

This should be done quickly, and peer review should then begin. For your purposes as an author, I would recommend doing it as effective the same thing. There are many different journal review systems, and they use a different (and sometimes ambiguous) language. So I recommend not trying to analyze the language too carefully. What is clear here is that the peer review process is underway and that you can`t really do anything other than wait for the nuance that the system can tell you about the current interactions between the editor and the critics. This is not necessarily the same as “audit” and “pending evaluation.” This is a clear term that means that the auditors have agreed to review the article but have not yet submitted a report. The first is a vague term that could mean anything: the expert has been invited, the expert has agreed to check, perhaps even the expert has submitted an evaluation, but there are other critics who have not yet completed their evaluations. What does this mean if your status as a “pending examiner selection,” then “pending examiner invitation” to “pending examiner agreement,” then “selection of pending examiners” and “selection of examiners on hold” and “… “and then” … A deal” again? Is the paper checked or is it difficult to find experts? The document was presented in October.