wiley manuscript status under consideration

After four rounds of revision, the manuscript was sent out to only one reviewer. Although using pure CBD does not result in THC-like intoxication, it is not risk-free. Is it relevant and interesting? Wiley and the ASBMR support efforts to encourage the sharing of research data. However, if the status has been showing "under consideration" for a long time, there is a possibility that the editor is trying to find peer reviewers for the paper. Scholarly interest in the experience of dehumanization, the perception that one is being dehumanized, has increased significantly in recent years, yet the construct lacks a validated measurement. Currently I am working on a project wherein I need to predict the estimated new Selling price of IPL players based on their current base price and previous years' performance & sold price. I am also concerned about the second possibility as some other peers also told me about that possibility. After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. "Number your comments!!!" Aim: To determine the immunization coverage, status and the determinants in under 5-year-old children in . Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, one of the reviewers may have accepted the online invitation initially; and let the editor/associate editor know that s/he may have some conflict of interest. Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. With some journals, editors are invited and not assigned. Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. Modified on: Tue, 10 Dec, 2019 at 11:12 PM. These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues. Government contractor companies in dc 3 . This appears to be a Nature journal. Recent loosening of legal restrictions on cannabis and its chemical constituents, including phytocannabinoids such as 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), has led to rapid proliferation and wide availability of products containing CBD. I want do online protein databank search for my protein identification and its homology. Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation. As part of the journal's commitment to supporting authors at every step of the publishing process, the journal requires the submitting author (only) to provide an ORCID iD when submitting a manuscript. Our results also underpin the usefulness to combine eDNA with SDM in an iterative . Hopefully, your paper will be rigorously reviewed by an expert in the field and be accepted soon in your intended journal. Give positive feedback first. In your recommendations for the author, you should: Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. How much value does a review paper carry in a higher study aspirant student's profile which is presented in a Peer Reviewed Scopus Indexed conference? our publication is in the same situation (in second round of submission, after performing revision experiments). Do the keywords accurately reflect the content? Green colour indicates that our results were in line with the hypothesis that intergroup variation was greater than intragroup variation (compared to intragroup RRA per row) and red colour that they were not in line with our hypothesis meaning that intragroup variation . MR and PR wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors critically reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report. Manage your citations: Insert references from a personal reference library or from online sourcesno separate reference manager required. Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism. With the same molecule precursor and growth procedure, we show one-billion-fold enhancement in electrical conductivities of amorphous monolayers by simply varying the growth temperature (325 C . Answer: Once a paper is submitted to a journal, it is assigned to a handling editor who conducts an initial screening of the paper to see if it meets the basic requirements of the journal. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. [1] IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronic . , . . Author, 1 C. D. Author 2 and E. F . "Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. Background: Immunization coverage in different parts of the country varies widely despite efforts to improve the services. Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice. Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading. We hypothesize that this response is caused by leaf structural change associated with altered tissue water status; under cold winter conditions, leaves often remove water from their mesophyll cells, preventing intracellular freezing, as ice formation within the cells of the leaves is deadly (Steponkus, 1984; Li & Christersson, 1993; Buchanan et . You should consider if the referencing is adequate: Check for a well-balanced list of references that is: You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. It is widely stated that the majority (60%) of emerging infectious diseases of people and all known human pandemics in the past century (including influenza, HIV, MERS and SARS-CoV-2) have been caused by the zoonotic spill-over and spread of animal pathogens, principally from wildlife reservoirs. I am looking for the suggestion among which one to pick from the above two categories for a research work. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. Peer-review is handled by researchers and scholars. If the initial reviews are conflicting, Hey ,, this happpened to my manuscript just yesterday, what can I expect ? Depending on the journal, the assignment may be done by technical staff, the journal's chief editor, or automatic by submission category or author suggestion. I would love to hear from you. The structure of the review report varies between journals. Aims and Scope. Wiley under review. It need not be fully complete research - it may be an interim paper. on 29 Aug, 2018, This content belongs to the Journal submission & peer review Stage. The Action Editor may decide to make a decision without allocating reviewers. Motivation: The only problem is they do not update you on the status of your manuscript for the moment you submit it, it just stayed at "under consideration", which made us feel that it was still under editorial review. Under Review is Wiley's new service to streamline the early sharing of research and open up the peer review process. Peer review is a process that involves various players - the author, the reviewer and the editor to name a few. You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. conceived the review and drafted the outline. I guess you can search on the web how long they typically take for the first decision. Recently, I have submitted my manuscript to a peer reviewed journal (Wiley). Submission and Peer Review Process. Wiley under consideration. Format your papers automatically: Submission templates let authors quickly format and reformat manuscripts and citations in accordance with a journals specifications. Under review: The paper is with reviewers for comment or waiting for the Action Editor's decision. If no news is good news, blank news is great news? Editorial Policies Originality. In your case, probably the reviewer or the section editor has declined the request after initial acceptance or has returned the manuscript without reviewing, which has changed the status to the previous one. If the status does not change soon, you should send a status inquiry to the editorial office. The chances of. Wiley and the ASBMR support efforts to encourage the sharing of research data. [CDATA[// >

Scholastic Vocabulary Pdf, Clear Creek Isd Superintendent, What Year Did Portsmouth Win The Fa Cup, Articles W