1

I would like to know the paper rejection probability (very rough) after two round of major revision. At the 1st and 2nd revision, I have revised the paper properly according to the reviewer's comments. The reviewer has raised a new issue in the 2nd revision and the reviewer has recommended me to revise the paper again. I have revised the paper properly again and submitted to the journal. The number of assign reviewer for the paper is only 1 (Reviewer 1). The paper has been reviewing for 7 months.

In the 2nd revision, I could not understand the editorial manager paper status meaning. The paper status has changed from "major revision" to "with editor" after submitting the revised paper. After 1 week later the paper status has changed to "under review" and then after two weeks later the paper status has changed to "with editor". I have not received any email from the editor so far. This morning I have checked the paper status and I found that the paper status again has changed to "under review". I would be grateful if someone could help me to understand the meaning of the status.

closed as off-topic by David Ketcheson, scaaahu, Buzz, user3209815, J-Kun Apr 13 '18 at 15:14

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The answer to this question strongly depends on individual factors such as a certain person’s preferences, a given institution’s regulations, the exact contents of your work or your personal values. Thus only someone familiar can answer this question and it cannot be generalised to apply to others. (See this discussion for more info.)" – David Ketcheson, scaaahu, Buzz, user3209815, J-Kun
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 6
    I don't think this is a question of "probability". The editor doesn't use dice to make a decision. – user9646 Apr 13 '18 at 8:59
  • 1
    @NajibIdrissi You may want to familiarize yourself with subjective probabilities en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations – HRSE Apr 13 '18 at 9:10
  • 4
    @HRSE Well then, let me be clearer. I think any kind of "probability" will be meaningless as the situation is very much dependent on individual factors, such as the severity of the revisions, the journal's policies, the editor's sensibilities, the content and phrasing of the referee's reports, and so on. This is not the right question to ask. – user9646 Apr 13 '18 at 9:16
  • 5
    Lean back (as in work on something else) and stop checking the online status system. – Mark Apr 13 '18 at 9:18
4

In general, few editors would allow for several rounds of resubmission unless they would like to publish the paper. Therefore, the probability of eventual acceptance should be much higher than the base acceptance rate at the journal.

With regards to the status updates: "with editor" means that the editor is about to look at your resubmission and make a decision on whether to send it out to referees. "Under review" means that reviewers have been assigned. In some cases, it does not mean that the reviewers have actually agreed to reviewing. The switch back to "with editor" suggests that the reviewer has either declined to review the paper again or has completed the review. In the former case, expect the paper to switch back to "under review", in the latter case expect to hear from the editor soon.

1

Why not check with the editor whether she already has received the review or when she expects to get it? You could even ask her how to interpret the status changes. I would find those a bit confusing as well.

At the risk of giving you false hope, I'd say I think you are in a good position and the chance of rejection at this stage is slim. Why do I think this?

  1. The editor has already decided they are interested in the paper; it would not have been send out for review otherwise.
  2. Being asked to revise your manuscript after reviews again indicates that both the reviewer and the editor think those revisions are doable and that the manuscript would be publishable after revisions.
  3. In both revisions you managed (I am inferring this from what you wrote) to answer the reviewer questions to your own satisfaction and the reviewer also found your answers at the first revision sufficient.

All this together makes me think you have a quite high chance of acceptance currently.

Please see What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? for general information on journal workflows.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.