How much time does each stage of paper in Elsevier Editorial System (EES) take?
We have submitted a paper to an Elsevier Journal and now I want to know how much time each stage in article lifecycle take?
There is an article in Elsevier site which describes different status of a paper from submission to publication:
- Submitted to Journal
- Editor Invited (Conditional - this step may not occurs)
- With Editor
- Under Review
- Required Reviews Complete
- Decision in Process
- Completed – Accept
It also noted that:
Please Note: Most journals aim to communicate decisions to authors within four months of the start of the review process. There are a number of factors that may influence the actual time taken, most notably the availability and responsiveness of the article's referees. In consequence, peer review times do vary per journal. During the peer review process your article will show a status of ‘Under Review’.
But our paper status is Technical Check In Progress. this status is not mentioned in Elsevier site! I'm confused about this statuses. and now after 40 days the status is still in that stage. I want an estimation about time of this steps to see if I should be concern or not.
@EnergyNumbers The stage *Technical Check In Progress* is not mentioned in elsevier site! that's the confusing part. and now after 40 days the status is still in that stage. I want an estimation about time of this steps to see if I should be concern or not
There is no reasonable field-independent answer to this question. Even within a field, the time for processing different papers at the same journal can vary a lot.
Each electronic manuscript handling system typically has a set time frame for each part of the review-revisions process. The systems have default values which, I would assume, are what most journals use. It is, however, possible to custom make the different time periods for each part of the process.
1.Submitted to Journal: This usually does not involve a lot of time and a reasonable time frame might be
5-10 daysdepending on factors such as workload, time of year etc. The step might involve inspection of the quality of the submitted material, but not necessarily.
2.Editor Invited (Conditional - this step may not occur): This may again be another
5-10 daysand may be affected by workload etc.
3.With Editor: The main problem that occurs here is difficulty to assign reviewers. The editor may also be overloaded with work. The time frame is likely something like
3 weeksbut will vary.
4.Under Review: Each journal has a time frame and
3 weeksis what I am accustomed to in my field. Reviewers that accept reviews and never return them is a problem here. How quickly the editor tries to assign other reviewers to speed up the process will vary from person to person and journal to journal.
5.Required Reviews Complete: I am not sure if you actually mean revisions here because typically the author gets about
3-6 weeksto revise the manuscript. This is another point where delays can occur but they are self-inflicted.
6.Decision in Process: The decision process may require some time since the editor needs to read the revised manuscript and the revisions/rebuttal from the author to make a decision. In many cases there is cause for another round of reviews which would loop back to 4 and 5.
7.Completed – Accept: 7 could be 6 if the manuscript gets accepted after one round (rare in many circumstances).
Once accepted, the manuscript goes to copy editing and type-setting. This may be a quick process depending on the resources provided by the publisher. Journals using LaTeX have the advantage of having print ready proofs basically at the turn of a switch.
To sum up. Each of these steps can take various amounts of time depending on the working conditions at the journal as well as the expedience of reviewers and authors. I think the time frames I have outlined are reasonable but that does not mean all journals will be that quick (or slow, depending on your view).
This is all very field-specific. Some of these numbers are way off for my field.
@DavidKetcheson - I agree, some of these are *one day* for my field, and some of them are longer. I don't think its possible to get a field-agnostic, or even journal-agnostic answer to this question.
I happened to have recently gone through most of this process with EES in the past few months and can provide my actual timeline (but not done yet!), for what it's worth:
Submitted to Journal: Day 0
Editor Invited (Conditional - this step may not occur): N/A
With Editor: Day 2
Under Review: Day 14
Required Reviews Complete: Day 44, revisions were then submitted back to EES 14 days later (Day 58).
With Editor: Day 60
Under Review: Day 65
Required Reviews Completed: Day 73
Decision (Accepted): Day 75
Final Disposition: Day 76
Sent to/Received by Elsevier: Day 76
Publishing agreement/Offprint order/Color figures forms sent: Day 80
Proofs Available: Day 81
Once the last few steps are complete, I'll add these, but this covers most of the process. Perhaps if others do the same, a statistical estimate can be made.
Technical Check In Progress refers to the Technical screening which is explained at:
To solve the problem of peer reviewers and Editors being overloaded with manuscripts which contain many ‘technical’ problems such as poor English, Elsevier introduced a Technical Screening process for all journal submissions
This process shouldn't take too long. 40 days sounds too much to me and you may want to email the editor asking for an update on the status of your paper.
UPDATE: I just realised from your profile that you are Iranian. The delay might also be caused by the sanctions implemented by Elsevier against your compatriots.
A shame, I would say.
your username seems like boycottElsevier! This is not a new issue. The sanction against Iran banned Iranian publication in IEEE before but that was solved and this is new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iranian_scientists I wonder if this just applies to Elsevier and not IEEE?
@sajjadG I see. Indeed, that was my intention at choosing this username. There is a huge, but paradoxically not too influential, movement called "boycott Elsevier". One of the pioneers of this is Tim Gowers. Elsevier's journals are among the most expensive journals which creates controversy since they only administrate the publications. This thing about sanctioning countries goes against the roots of science. I don't know about the status of the problem with IEEE.
@BoyCodElsevier I asked them about the sanction and they said it's not the reason. The sanction affects US editors and Elsevier has Editors all over the world.
A shame, Indeed!
I found this link that describes The Life of an Elsevier Editorial System Manuscript. I think it may be useful to others. It is a real-life report of the editorial process from the beginning to end.
(Answer edited to increase its length in an attempt to avoid future vandalism attempts.)
I have many publication in peer review journals and I would share my experience with manuscript submission. When the manuscript is within the scope and of high quality, one should not always expect that an Editor would be willing to pass it to review. There are many reasons. It is most likely that an Editor would not challenge other recognized authors and, in order to avoid complications, he/she would not take a responsibility to publish it. So, if you receive later something like "the topic is too broad or too narrow and the Editorial Board has decided to reject your submission", - do not be surprised. The most of Editors are fair enough, but sometimes strange thins may happen.