Scholar One Awaiting Referee Scores Awaiting Reviewer Scores

Typical workflow of a journal

Overview

Schematic overview of journal workflow

Initial Check

This step is commonly performed by the journal's administrative staff. It may include for instance:

• Checking for missing or cleaved files.
• Checking compliance with length requirements, if any.
• Checking cardinal formatting requirements, e.grand., line numbers, if required by the journal.
• A plagiarism check.
• Excluding manuscripts of very low quality, such every bit automatic translations or manuscripts with very poor linguistic communication.

Likewise 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 periodical, the assignment may be washed by technical staff, the periodical's primary editor, or automatic by submission category or author suggestion. With some journals, editors are invited and not assigned.

Also known equally: with editors (APS), editor assigned (Editorial Managing director, AIP), AE assignment (IEEE), assigned to the editor (NPG)

Typical duration: A few workdays to several weeks.

Editorial cess

The editors decide whether the paper should enter the review process or should be rejected directly, due east.m., considering it does non fit the periodical'due south scope or requirements on importance or quality. A rejection at this (or the previous) phase is chosen desk-bound reject. The paper may likewise exist 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 take been addressed fairly. If yes, they either proceed with another round of reviews or leap to editorial decision immediately – this generally depends on the magnitude and nature of the revision.

Also known as: with editors (APS), waiting for potential reviewer assignment (AIP), nether review (ScholarOne), assigned to the editor (NPG)

Typical elapsing: This strongly depends on the journal: With some journals, it is less than a calendar week; with others it may take a month, in item 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 reject to review or not perform the review in a certain time (equally given by the editor or journal), the editor unremarkably has to select a new referee. The master 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 sure or all reviewers need not see the manuscript again, every bit their comments take been adequately addressed.

As well 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 pick of referees is usually comprised in the previous step. Some editorial systems requite the condition every bit with editors (or similar) if a new referee needs to be assigned and no other referee is currently assigned. Others will show nether review regardless.

Typical duration: This strongly depends on the field and periodical. It typically ranges from a few weeks to several months, but in some cases (specially for highly theoretical work where intense proof-checking is expected), it may be as long as 1 to two years. Moreover, the key factors for the duration of an individual peer-review procedure are how soon the reviewers perform the review and how many reviewers decline or neglect to review the manuscript. Thus, fifty-fifty for a given periodical, in that location is a potent variation of review durations. Some journals give their statistics on this time (or a related ane) on their webpage.

Editorial determination

Based on the reviews, the editors determine whether:

• The manuscript shall be rejected.
• The manuscript needs to be revised by the authors before it tin possibly exist accepted. If the authors submit a revised manuscript, the workflow is mostly the same as for the initial submission.
• The manuscript shall be accustomed equally it is.
• A conclusion requires farther reviews.

Also known as with editors (APS), review completed, required reviews completed (Elsevier Editorial System (EES)), awaiting AE recommendation, pending decision (ScholarOne), awaiting EiC decision (IEEE), Editor Decision Started (AIP), Determination Started (NPG). This may be followed by a brusk phase denoted decision alphabetic character 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 conclusion.

Copy editing and typesetting

The commodity is re-create-edited and typeset by the publisher. Occasionally, requests to the authors may occur at this stage, due east.1000., due to low-quality figures.

For some journals, a pre-copy-editing version of the manuscript will be put online at this point nether a category like Just Accustomed, with a warning that the current version has non even so been re-create-edited and may modify further earlier publication.

Also known every bit: in production, in printing

Typical duration: This more often than not depends on the publisher'south 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 newspaper's proofs, i.eastward., the paper equally information technology is nearly to be published. If corrections are necessary, information technology goes back to copy editing and typesetting.

Likewise known as: proofs with authors, Galley proof

Typical duration: Most journals request proofs to be returned inside a sure fourth dimension, usually between 48 hours and a calendar week (reasons).

Publication

For some journals, particularly newer ones with an online-axial publication model, an article will exist published immediately after the previous pace has been completed.

Other journals with a more traditional process will queue upwards the publication for collation into a periodical issue with other manufactures. The time before this issue is published depends on the size of the journal'south 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 bachelor to the community earlier the last issue date. Articles thus frequently acquire ii publication dates: one for online and ane for print publication.

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

mcgladeagall1968.blogspot.com

Source: https://lib.tdtu.edu.vn/guides/typical-workflow-of-a-journal

Share this post