Ruby Radio

Listen and fall in Love

What Does Under Review Mean?

What Does Under Review Mean
More Definitions of Under review Under review means that your application has been received and is in the screening or background check process. You may have been sent an email that requests you complete some pre-assessments (see Question 13) or you may be called for an interview. There is nothing else you need to do.

Does under review mean accepted?

What does ‘Under Review’ mean? ‘Under Review’ means that your application has been received and is in the screening process.

What does it mean to be under review?

: being officially examined. The policy is under review.

What does it mean if your paper is under review?

14. What do all the manuscript statuses mean? – Once a manuscript has been submitted, it will go through different stages of progress on SuSy. Here’s an overview of the statuses and their meanings.

Pending review = The paper is due to be pre-checked. Under review = The paper is being peer-reviewed. Pending decision = A first assessment will be made by the Academic Editor. It usually takes around 48 hours. Pending major or minor revisions = Author revisions are in progress. Pending editor decision = The Academic Editor is making a final decision. Paper accepted = The decision to accept for publication has been communicated to authors and a professional Layout Editor is working on the paper. English correction done = The paper has been edited for English, which takes about 24 hours. This is a mandatory step with no additional fee. Author proofreading = Typographic, image quality, references order, callouts or similar layout and language edits have been made, or are being suggested, for authors to review and confirm. It is the last chance for authors to edit their paper. Author proofreading – resubmitted = Authors have resubmitted the latest version of their paper, and the Assistant Editor will accept changes and double-check that everything is correct before paper publication. Pending conversion = Microsoft Word or LaTeX is being converted to JATS XML. HTML, EPUB, and PDF versions are automatically generated. Upon completion of the production steps, the article will be available online.

How long can a paper be under review?

Some journals give reviewers 60 days, others give 40 days, 30 days, or 20 days to review a paper. MDPI journals give only 10 days, but it can be extended if the reviewer needs more time.

Does under review mean denied?

What ‘application pending’ and ‘under further review’ mean – If you don’t get an instant decision on your credit card application, don’t panic or jump to the conclusion that your application has been denied. “Application pending” or “under further review” simply means the card issuer hasn’t approved or denied your application yet, and more time is needed to evaluate your application.

What is the difference between review and under review?

Under Review – When the status of your manuscript changes to under review, this means that it has passed the initial editorial checks. The journal has confirmed that you’ve uploaded and submitted the correct documents and that the content of your paper is relevant to your journal.

The status of under review means that the paper has been sent to external expert reviewers and your paper is now being assessed by them. Note however that some journals may use the reverse of the above if making a distinction between the two terms. That is to say that some journals may have the status of the submitted paper as under review whilst they assess its suitability for review and the status in review when it’s actually being assessed by reviewers.

You may also notice that the date associated with the status of under review changes even though the actual status does not. In these cases, it’s likely an update from the journal to indicate that the associate editor has sent the manuscript to a new peer reviewer for assessment.

  • This sometimes happens during the peer review process where the journal editor may send out the submitted manuscript to several potential reviewers who don’t respond with a decision or recommendation; to progress the review process, the editor then sends the manuscript to different reviewers.
  • This is one of the reasons why the peer review timeline can sometimes be so variable.

It’s becoming more common for journals or the corresponding author to make a preprint version of your journal submission available to read. After you receive reviewer comments and have submitted a revised manuscript, then this revision may then also be made available in an early sharing format.

What is under process vs under review?

2 answers. Under review means your application was submitted successfully and your qualification are being compared to other candidates. Process complete means either you were offered a position or were not selected for the position.

What is under review vs in review?

One uses in review when the purpose is simply to recollect or remember events. One uses under review when the purpose is to critically scrutinize events – for example to find fault or establish innocence.

Can a paper be rejected after under review?

In last weeks’ blog post, we looked at some of the most common reasons behind the rejection of manuscripts, but what if you’re on the receiving end of a rejection? Peer review is about making your paper the best it can possibly be, but if your paper has been rejected, knowing this doesn’t make it any easier.

  1. However, it’s very common for papers to be rejected; studies have shown that around 21% of papers are rejected without review, while approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review,
  2. So, what are your options if your manuscript is rejected? If your paper was rejected without review due to it falling outside the aims and scopes of the journal, you should find a new journal to submit to (find tips on choosing the right journal for you here ).

If you receive your rejection after review, you should have some good suggestions about possible improvements you could make to your paper. Some of the options you might want to consider include: 1. Make the recommended changes and resubmit your manuscript to the same journal.

  1. If you’d like to publish in a particular journal, and the editor has indicated that they will accept your paper if revisions are made, then this is probably your best option.
  2. However, if your paper was rejected outright and the editor doesn’t want to reconsider, you should respect this decision and submit elsewhere.2.

Make changes and submit your manuscript to a different journal. First, take into account any recommendations you may have received during the first round of review, and if necessary, work on improving your manuscript before submitting it to another journal.

  • Don’t forget to adjust any details such as the cover letter, referencing, and any other journal specific details before submission to a different journal.3.
  • Make no changes and submit your manuscript to a different journal.
  • This is an easy option, but one that you should probably avoid.
  • To begin with, any suggestions made during the first round of review could lead to improvements in your paper; not taking these suggestions into account would be missing the opportunity to increase your chance of acceptance at the next journal.

Secondly, there is the possibility that your manuscript may be assessed by the same reviewers at the new journal (especially if you work within a niche field). Their recommendation is unlikely to change if you haven’t addressed any of the concerns raised in the previous review.4.

Discard the manuscript and never resubmit it. You might decide that it’s not worth the trouble of resubmitting your manuscript, but remember that your work is still valuable. It may be that the data you have collected is useful to someone else, or that your paper could help another researcher avoid generating similar negative results.

You could consider posting your paper to sites such as figshare or Dryad, where it will be both accessible for others and citable.5. Appeal the decision. If you feel that the decision to reject was unfair, or there were major flaws in the review process, then as the author you have the right to appeal.

Most journals will have a publicly described policy for appealing editorial decisions. It’s important to remember that, as much as rejection hurts, your decision to appeal should be based on logic rather than emotion. You should appeal if you believe that any misconduct has taken place, or a legitimate misunderstanding or error that has led to the decision to reject your work.

Make it clear to the editor why you are appealing the decision and be careful not to use emotive, combative language. If your work has been rejected based on the scope of the journal, or its perceived impact, then appeals are unlikely to be successful.

See also:  How To Write A Performance Review For Teamwork?

Why is my paper under review for so long?

If your paper is in the review complete stage for more than two weeks. This could mean the editor is slow at submitting a decision, or it could mean the editor is waiting for more reviewers. You might get an early peek at the likely decision if the editor decides to send you the reviews that have already been received.

What does in review means?

Other forms: reviews; reviewed; reviewing To review means to look back over something for evaluation or memory. “The year in review ” is a popular form of news feature near the end of December. If your boss wants to give you a review, she wants to look over the history of your job performance.

  • A doctor might review your medical record to help diagnose your sickness.
  • The review of a book or movie often evaluates the work in question based on its strong and weak points, sometimes ending with a recommendation (or a dismissal).
  • Before a big test, you might want to review (“brush up on”) your notes.

Definitions of review

verb look at again; examine again “let’s review your situation” synonyms: reexamine verb look back upon (a period of time, sequence of events); remember “she reviewed her achievements with pride” synonyms: look back, retrospect verb refresh one’s memory “I reviewed the material before the test” synonyms: brush up, refresh noun practice intended to polish performance or refresh the memory noun a summary at the end that repeats the substance of a longer discussion synonyms: recap, recapitulation see more see less types: epanodos recapitulation of the main ideas of a speech (especially in reverse order) type of: capitulation a summary that enumerates the main parts of a topic noun a subsequent examination of a patient for the purpose of monitoring earlier treatment noun (accounting) a service (less exhaustive than an audit) that provides some assurance to interested parties as to the reliability of financial data noun (law) a judicial reexamination of the proceedings of a court (especially by an appellate court) see more see less types: bill of review a proceeding brought to obtain an explanation or an alteration or a reversal of a decree by the court that rendered it judicial review review by a court of law of actions of a government official or entity or of some other legally appointed person or body or the review by an appellate court of the decision of a trial court strict scrutiny the most stringent standard of review a court applies to determine whether a law is constitutional type of: legal proceeding, proceeding, proceedings (law) the institution of a sequence of steps by which legal judgments are invoked “She reviews books for the New York Times” synonyms: critique noun a new appraisal or evaluation noun an essay or article that gives a critical evaluation (as of a book or play) noun a periodical that publishes critical essays on current affairs or literature or art noun a variety show with topical sketches and songs and dancing and comedians noun a formal or official examination “the platoon stood ready for review ” synonyms: inspection verb hold a review (of troops)

DISCLAIMER: These example sentences appear in various news sources and books to reflect the usage of the word ‘review’, Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Vocabulary.com or its editors. Send us feedback EDITOR’S CHOICE

How long does it take to be in under review status?

It means that someone started screening your application and documents. You should likely hear back soon (until mid-next week ).

Do review papers have results?

What is a review article? | Learn how to write a review article | What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic.

What does under review mean Elsevier?

The status “under review” means that the manuscript has cleared admin check and is now with the peer reviewers. Once the peer review process is completed the status of your manuscript changes to “Ready for decision.” It implies that the reviews for your paper have come in and the editor can now make a decision on your paper.

  1. If the status changes back to “under review,” the editor is probably not satisfied with the reviews he/she has received and has sent your manuscript for an additional review.
  2. This can happen if the reviewers have conflicting views or if one or more of the reviews are weak or unsatisfactory.
  3. However, you have nothing to be worried about as this is quite common and does not indicate anything about the outcome of your paper.

Related reading:

Tracking your manuscript status in journal submission systems Is it a bad sign if the status shows “Ready for Decision” for a long time? Why has the status of my manuscript changed from “Under review” to “Submitted?”

Does 7 10 days mean denial?

What do the Chase Status Messages Mean? – When you check your Chase application status by phone you will be given one of the three application status messages: A 30-day message means that Chase needs more time to consider your application. Wait a few days and call 1-888-270-2127 to check the status.

A two week message typically means that your application has been approved! Congratulations, your card should arrive within 7-10 business days. A 7-10 day message typically means that your application has been denied. You can either wait for the rejection letter or call Chase reconsideration line at 1-888-270-2127 and plead your case.

In some situations, Chase merely needs to verify some of your information. For example, if you recently moved or something on your application did not match your credit report. For business cards, Chase will likely request business records or ask further questions about your business operations.

Chase has several application rules that could be the reason for your denied application. These rules are not officially published by Chase, but these rules almost impossible to get around. Chase will automatically deny your application if you have opened up five or more personal credit cards in the last 24 months.

This rule applies to all Chase credit cards, which is why you should prioritize Chase credit cards before any other card issuer. Business card do not count towards your 5/24 total, with the exception of business cards from Capital One, Discover, or some other smaller banks.

  1. Chase will automatically deny your credit application if you have opened more than 2 personal credit cards within the last 30 days.
  2. For business cards, the limit is one card every 30 days.
  3. We recommend you space out your Chase applications to one application every 45 days because Chase has a history of shutting down all of a customer’s credit card accounts if they have opened too many cards too quickly.

Chase has two great travel credit cards, the Sapphire Reserve and the Sapphire Preferred. However, Chase limits you to only one of these cards. You will have to decide if you want the Sapphire Reserve, which has a $550 annual fee, but a $300 travel credit, airport lounge access, and many other great benefits.

Or do you want the Sapphire Preferred, which has a $95 annual fee, earns 2x points on travel and dining, trip-delay protection, and primary rental car insurance. Chase limits you to one Southwest personal card and one Southwest business card. If you currently have a Southwest credit card and want a new bonus, you would need to cancel that card and re-open a new one at least 24 months from that card’s sign up bonus.

You could previously sign up for two personal cards and get Southwest’s great Companion Pass, but now you have to sign up for one personal and one business card to reach the Companion Pass.

What does pending under review mean?

Related Definitions Pending Review status means your application is waiting to be reviewed by your institution.

See also:  How To Ask For Promotion In Performance Review?

Why may a review be rejected?

b. Insufficient data upon which to base conclusions – Many papers that reach the review stage are rejected because although their hypothesis is clear and the study is well designed, the conclusions made do not have enough data to make the case.

Perhaps the sample size or patient data set is too small to yield statistically significant results. Alternatively, in medical studies, the follow-up period may be too short to adequately demonstrate the claimed efficacy of a drug or treatment.

Note : For such papers, reviewers may request the authors to do any/all of the following:

Conduct additional experiments. Enrol more patients into their study. Report the results at a later date after a longer follow-up period.

What does reject after review mean?

​If one situation can be selected as the most dreaded moment during a journal to publish a paper, it should be the editorial decision of rejection after review(s), I can easily recall the traumatic feeling of the rejection emails after many months or even over a year for the peer review process and rounds of revisions.

  1. Especially for papers you particularly loved and dedicated to, the feeling can be called the end-of-world moment.
  2. But it’s common even for the brightest minds in science – Nobel laureates can have their paper rejected (for example, see this article )! Well, the fact your paper was rejected after review does not mean your work will give you Nobel Prize, but it might give some solace to our sour hearts.

Before talking more about how to deal with this tragic event, I wish to share my opinion/experience on why papers got rejected after review(s)? Why papers got rejected after review(s)? As with all editorial decisions, the rejection after review(s) is the result of various considerations that the editor has to take into account.

Hence, it is not always clear to learn the reasons behind the rejection (although some kind editors provide a brief basis of their decision in the decision letter/email). However, it may still be useful to share my personal opinion/thought based on my experience: Insufficient novelty. When your paper is sent out for external review, it generally means that the editor found your paper’s topic interesting and potentially fit with their journal for publication.

However, the editor relies on external expert reviewers for detailed assessments of your work, based on which the editor can make a more informed decision. In most journals, novelty is one of the most critical requirements for publication and when the reviewer(s) provide well-supported critiques on the insufficient novelty of your work, it might be enough to turn our paper down from the editor’s consideration.

This is probably one of the most common reasons for the rejection after review(s). How to make sure your work is novel? You need to do a good job on the literature review ( this tip post might be helpful). Marginal advances over existing works. The reviewer(s) might agree that your work is novel/new at least in part, but they still can give substantial critiques on the impact and significance of your work based on the marginal advances made in your work compared to existing works.

While the assessment of significance is more within a subjective domain than the assessment of novelty and technical soundness, the strong and well-supported criticism on marginal advances can still be formidable enough to kill interest in your work from the editor’s mind.

This is probably a more common reason in high-profile journals (for example, flagship journals like Nature, Science, Cell, etc) where typically both novelty and impact (or significance/breakthrough) are emphasized. Insufficient supports for claims. The reviewer(s) might agree that your work is novel and significant.

But they still can give substantial criticism on the technical soundness/completeness of your data/method/analysis in support of your major claims in the paper. This is more technical critiques than that on novelty and significance, but strong and well-supported criticism on insufficient supports for claims/hypotheses in the paper can be sufficient reason for the editor to decide not to continue further external peer-review or consideration for publication.

Is the rejection after review(s) the end and you must swallow the bitter taste and look for another journal to submit restarting all the tough journey again? Probably (and sadly) the answer is yes mostly, but also sometimes no in some cases. However, this is not generalizable as each paper has its unique situation.

So, I am quite cautious to call these as tips but more wish to share my personal experiences on rejection after review(s) in rough categories and how I dealt with them. Hope it would still be helpful. Category I – Rejection with fundamental & well-supported critiques This type of rejection is often a result of strong and well-supported criticism from the reviewer(s) on fundamental aspects of the work such as novelty and significance.

  • Good and professional reviewers might support their critiques on novelty and significance based on the relevant literature references accompanied by their expert opinions and assessments.
  • In my opinion/experience, this type of rejection generally means the end of the process and requires searching for a new place to try.

It is tempting to appeal as an assessment on fundamental quality of the paper such as novelty and significance can be subjectively affected by the reviewer(s) personal view. However, it is important to respect the reviewers’ professional assessment and the editor’s decision based on it when they provided well-supported criticism.

Were any obvious prior work(s) missed in the literature review that renders the work not novel?Was the claimed significance in the paper relevant and well-supported?Did data and analyses in the paper well-support the claimed novelty and significance?Was the choice of journal appropriate to get your paper properly evaluated (contents-reviewer pool matching)?

Category II – Rejection with technical & well-supported critiques This case of rejection is often the result of strong and well-supported criticism from reviewer(s) on more technical issues of the paper such as insufficient supports for claims. In my experience, strong and well-supported criticism on technical insufficiency or incompleteness to support the major claims/findings in the paper can result in both major revision or rejection – while the rejection might come when the editor finds the degree of insufficiency/incompleteness of presented data/analyses is beyond the level addressable by revision(s).

  1. While this case of rejection would have much clearer paths to address the concerns of the reviewers and the editor, it would still likely require you to search for a new journal to try.
  2. Rarely, the editor might re-consider the significantly revised manuscript where all the reviewers’ and the editor’s concerns and comments are fully addressed in the form of (unsolicited) resubmission, but it would be completely dependent upon the editor.

So, I think the default path is finding a new journal to submit, but it would still be possible to ask the original handling editor’s opinion if you would like. However, there is one important thing to note for this type of rejection. This type of rejection is probably the most informative as the reviewers’ and the editor’s comments and critiques may clearly indicate the parts of your paper to be improved with additional experiments, analyses, and so on.

  • I STRONGLY RECOMMEND taking those comments seriously to address and improve your paper BEFORE you submit to another journal.
  • It is often common to find that the authors submit the rejected paper after review(s) to other journal(s) without any change, hoping more naïve reviewers would pass it easily.
  • It is understandable, but I believe that it is not a good practice for making our science healthy and strong.

As a reviewer, we all share our valuable time for free to review other papers to value and maintain our scientific community thriving with rigor, integrity, and excellence. As an author, we should keep improving our work and science based on the valued communications and feedbacks from the peers in return.

Category III – Rejection with erroneous critiques Alas, this is a nightmare to any paper, but it does happen sometimes although rare. This type of rejection is mostly the result of strong and erroneous critiques from reviewer(s). Here the word erroneous is important – the erroneous critiques are criticism 1) without reasonable and scientifically justifiable support such as reference, 2) based on excessively subjective or unprofessional opinions, and/or 3) based on a misunderstanding of the presented data/analyses in the paper (either intentional or mistaken).

How and why do erroneous critiques happen? Probably a myriad of reasons. In a good case, the reviewer(s) might be busy or not very familiar with the topic than they originally expected based on the title & abstract (typically the only information before accepting the review invitation), so inadvertently rely more on subjective opinion than objective scientific expertise; miss or misunderstand data/analyses in the paper.

See also:  How To Leave A Review On Offerup?

In a bad case, the reviewer(s) might have a conflict of interest such as competing groups – even though this should not be the case as researchers with conflict of interest must decline the review invitation by the most journals’ policy (but lamentably, it is the reality that some people do not keep this simple rule for various deplorable reasons).

This is the case where you can consider appealing to the editor for reconsideration. Different journals might have specific policies on appeal process. But it typically requires the cover letter to the handling editor together with the revised manuscript (where you addressed non-erroneous critiques in full as like typical revisions).

List of erroneous critiques you identified and brief explanation on why they are erroneous (with detailed rebuttal based on scientifically justifiable supports not your personal objection in the rebuttal/response letter).Other revisions you made to fully address other non-erroneous comments.Request for potential reconsideration of the decision.

It should be noted that the appeal may or may not change the editorial decision. Experienced editors might notice the errors in the reviewers’ comments and already considered them in their editorial decision. In such a case, your appeal to point out the erroneous critique might not change/affect the editor’s decision.

Also, the appealing process is somehow scientifically not productive or rewarding as it is closer to more personalized arguments than scientific discussion (although the fault would be on the reviewers who made erroneous critiques sadly). Hence, I do not highly recommend appeal in general. Considering the devastating and destructive consequences of erroneous reviews and resultant rejection of papers, I think that it is of utmost importance for all of us to do our best to serve our role in the scientific peer-review process with rigor, accuracy, integrity, and honor.

The next is the last tip post on a journey to publish a paper – Acceptance & Post-Acceptance Jobs. Part I: Overview Part II: Presubmission Inquiry & Initial Submission Part III: Desk Rejected, What Can be Next Step? Part IV: Revision, Art of Rebuttal Part V: Rejected After Review, End of World? (this post) Part VI: Acceptance & Post-Acceptance Jobs Disclaimer.

Can a paper be rejected after under review?

In last weeks’ blog post, we looked at some of the most common reasons behind the rejection of manuscripts, but what if you’re on the receiving end of a rejection? Peer review is about making your paper the best it can possibly be, but if your paper has been rejected, knowing this doesn’t make it any easier.

  • However, it’s very common for papers to be rejected; studies have shown that around 21% of papers are rejected without review, while approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review,
  • So, what are your options if your manuscript is rejected? If your paper was rejected without review due to it falling outside the aims and scopes of the journal, you should find a new journal to submit to (find tips on choosing the right journal for you here ).

If you receive your rejection after review, you should have some good suggestions about possible improvements you could make to your paper. Some of the options you might want to consider include: 1. Make the recommended changes and resubmit your manuscript to the same journal.

If you’d like to publish in a particular journal, and the editor has indicated that they will accept your paper if revisions are made, then this is probably your best option. However, if your paper was rejected outright and the editor doesn’t want to reconsider, you should respect this decision and submit elsewhere.2.

Make changes and submit your manuscript to a different journal. First, take into account any recommendations you may have received during the first round of review, and if necessary, work on improving your manuscript before submitting it to another journal.

Don’t forget to adjust any details such as the cover letter, referencing, and any other journal specific details before submission to a different journal.3. Make no changes and submit your manuscript to a different journal. This is an easy option, but one that you should probably avoid. To begin with, any suggestions made during the first round of review could lead to improvements in your paper; not taking these suggestions into account would be missing the opportunity to increase your chance of acceptance at the next journal.

Secondly, there is the possibility that your manuscript may be assessed by the same reviewers at the new journal (especially if you work within a niche field). Their recommendation is unlikely to change if you haven’t addressed any of the concerns raised in the previous review.4.

  1. Discard the manuscript and never resubmit it.
  2. You might decide that it’s not worth the trouble of resubmitting your manuscript, but remember that your work is still valuable.
  3. It may be that the data you have collected is useful to someone else, or that your paper could help another researcher avoid generating similar negative results.

You could consider posting your paper to sites such as figshare or Dryad, where it will be both accessible for others and citable.5. Appeal the decision. If you feel that the decision to reject was unfair, or there were major flaws in the review process, then as the author you have the right to appeal.

  • Most journals will have a publicly described policy for appealing editorial decisions.
  • It’s important to remember that, as much as rejection hurts, your decision to appeal should be based on logic rather than emotion.
  • You should appeal if you believe that any misconduct has taken place, or a legitimate misunderstanding or error that has led to the decision to reject your work.

Make it clear to the editor why you are appealing the decision and be careful not to use emotive, combative language. If your work has been rejected based on the scope of the journal, or its perceived impact, then appeals are unlikely to be successful.

What is the difference between application in review and under review?

Generally speaking, under review and in review mean the same, i.e. the manuscript is being reviewed by the reviewers. It is difficult to tell why exactly the status of your manuscript changed as you haven’t mentioned any previous status changes. One possible reason for the change could be that “under review” indicates that the reviewer has accepted the invitation to review and “in review” means that the review process has actually started.

How long will the status of my paper show “Under Review?” How long does it take for the status to change from “reviewers assigned” to “under review”?

What does pending under review mean?

Related Definitions Pending Review status means your application is waiting to be reviewed by your institution.

What does under review mean Elsevier?

The status “under review” means that the manuscript has cleared admin check and is now with the peer reviewers. Once the peer review process is completed the status of your manuscript changes to “Ready for decision.” It implies that the reviews for your paper have come in and the editor can now make a decision on your paper.

If the status changes back to “under review,” the editor is probably not satisfied with the reviews he/she has received and has sent your manuscript for an additional review. This can happen if the reviewers have conflicting views or if one or more of the reviews are weak or unsatisfactory. However, you have nothing to be worried about as this is quite common and does not indicate anything about the outcome of your paper.

Related reading:

Tracking your manuscript status in journal submission systems Is it a bad sign if the status shows “Ready for Decision” for a long time? Why has the status of my manuscript changed from “Under review” to “Submitted?”