This question already has an answer here:
I have been confused with the present status of my manuscript whose status follows the following timeline:
- Manuscript initially submitted through Editorial Manager (Springer): 25 Jan 2017
- Under Review: 27 Feb 2017 till 9 Jun 2017
- Reviews completed: 10 Jun 2017 till 22 Jun 2017
- Editor assigned: 22 Jun 2017
The journal is in the field of Computer Science and Computational Mechanics (Applied Computer Science).
My inferences from the above strange timeline:
- The reviews have been completed and the system administrator or the journal manager assigned the editor (who is assumed to be associated with it earlier) to take care of the review reports and make a call.
- The number of review reports is not sufficient. It would be re-reviewed and handled by another editor.
- It is a software issue or a bug.
I have the following questions:
- Whether is my inference correct?
- As one can see, it has been 6 months already. Is it too early to send a gentle reminder to the editor-in-chief to look after my manuscript?
- Is such a timeline of manuscript 'strange' at all? (Although it is difficult to answer this unless the editorial manager software is understood properly.)
Related posts and questions:
- Manuscript status changed to editor assigned after under review, what could be the reason?
- Editor of manuscript assigned after reviews were completed
- My question is different as the timeline does not follow the traditional journal workflow as discussed in the question What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?