Manuscript status indicators and related timelines depend on the publisher and journal to some extent. “Awaiting Production Checklist” is a term used by some academic journals during the publication process. This is the stage where the manuscript is queued for printing/online publication. In other words, your paper is nearing publication! The status “Awaiting Production Checklist” typically indicates that the manuscript has been accepted for publication, and it has been through the initial copyediting and formatting stages to prepare it for typesetting and final production. It could also mean that the journal’s production team is waiting for the authors to complete and submit a “Production Checklist” or similar checklist/questionnaire. This checklist requires authors to confirm that the manuscript title, author names, affiliations are correct; provide any final updates or corrections; sign off on any copyright transfer agreements, etc.Did you receive such a list (perhaps as a clickable link), and if so, did you fill it up and send it back? Once authors submit the completed checklist, the production team can proceed to finalize the manuscript formatting and move it into the publication production workflow. If the “Awaiting Production Checklist” status has disappeared from the manuscript tracking, it likely means you submitted...

Thank you for your question! The change from "with editorial office" to "with editor" indicates that your manuscript has successfully passed the initial screening by the editorial office. This means that your paper has met the basic requirements and is now assigned to the editor who will oversee the peer review process. The editor will invite peer reviewers, collect their feedback/questions, and make a decision regarding your manuscript.

Thank you for your question. If the status of your manuscript has been showing "Decision in Process" for almost two months, it is understandable that you might be concerned about the delay. Here are a few steps you can take to address the situation:1. Contact the journal: Start by reaching out to the journal's editorial office or the designated handling editor via email. Politely inquire about the status of your manuscript and express your concern about the extended processing time. Provide the manuscript title and any assigned manuscript ID or reference number for easy identification.2. Seek clarification: Ask for clarification regarding the reasons for the extended processing time. Inquire whether there are any specific issues or complications that are causing the delay. This will help you understand the situation better and manage your expectations.3. Request an update: Politely request an update on the progress of the review and decision-making process. Ask for an estimated timeline or any additional information that might help you understand when a decision is likely to be reached.4. Seek support from your co-authors: If you have co-authors, discuss the situation with them and consider sending a joint inquiry to the journal. Sometimes, multiple inquiries from the...

Dear Author,Thank you for your question.I empathize with the frustration you must be experiencing due to the extended waiting period. The "decision in process" status for a manuscript means that the editorial board is reviewing the manuscript after it has passed peer review. The editor will carefully evaluate the comments from the peer reviewers and examine the manuscript, and they may also consult with the reviewers again for clarity. While there is no fixed time for this process, it is normal for journals to take 4-8 weeks to arrive at the final decision. This waiting period does not imply any particular decision, whether rejection or acceptance. Such extended waiting periods are likely due to several papers lined up for review. Having said that, since the waiting period is nearing 2 months, you can do the following: • Check with the associate editor who is handling the manuscript regarding the status through mail. • If the associate editor is still working on the decision, ask them to provide an estimated timeline for when they expect to make a decision. Here’s a sample mail that you could use for the same. Dear Dr. [Associate Editor's Name],I hope this email finds you well.I am writing to inquire about...

As the EiC was responsive and let you know that the paper was assigned to a new Editor, it seems they’re doing their best to give your manuscript a fair chance. Also, papers that receive a major revision request are almost always sent for a second round of review, and while the re-review usually does not take as long as the first review if the paper is sent to the same set of reviewers, the editor can choose to send it to new reviewers, in which case, it can take longer.It’s possible that the second reviewer may have other commitments that may have delayed their acceptance of the review, but since it’s been nearly a month since the invite was sent, you could send a polite reminder enquiring about the status of the re-review. However, I would advise against sending too many reminders too often. Your manuscript is reaching closure and you wouldn't want to appear impatient at this stage.All the best!

Thank you for your question. Conference papers are often preliminary analyses, and it is acceptable to develop them into full-length manuscripts for publication in journals, as long as at least 30% new material is included.Please refer to this link https://www.editage.com/insights/what-are-the-basic-rules-for-submitting-the-same-research-to-a-conference-and-a-journal which explains the basics of submitting the same research to a conference and a journal.All the best! 

Thank you for your question. The "seeking expert advice" status usually means that the either the paper is being reviewed by a peer reviewer or the editor-in-chief is in the process of finding a peer revewer for your manuscript.

Thank you for your question. The change in the status is neither good nor bad. This link (https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/how-to/how-guides-reviewers/peer-review-hub/understand-peer-review-process) outlines the peer review process for Emerald journals. The status change from “awaiting referee selection” to “awaiting ED decision” means that peer reviewers were selected to review your manuscript and have sent their comments to the journal editor, who will now have to take the final decision on your manuscript (Accept, Revise, or Reject).

Dear Author, I understand your concern regarding the status of your manuscript. As you know "awaiting scores" means that your manuscript is undergoing peer review and the journal is waiting to hear back from the peer reviewer/s. Since you mentioned that after your last round of corrections, the status changed from "under review" to "awaiting scores" again, it most likely means that the final round of corrections that you submitted has been sent to the peer reviewers to be rechecked. Since your paper has already been accepted, I don't believe this to be a cause for concern; the journal accepted the paper with the condition that you would make the minor corrections that are needed, and now that you've done that, I recommend that you wait to hear back from the journal. You can choose to follow up with the journal editor if you do not hear back after a few weeks.Congratulations on the acceptance of your paper and all the best with the publication.

Submission portals may differ in terms of the submission statuses they use, so it would be difficult to provide a definitive answer without consulting with the journal editors. However, this status seems to indicate that your paper has cleared the initial editorial screening and will be sent for peer review. During this time, the editor looks for suitable reviewers for your paper and sends out review invitations.