1. How long does a review process take?
On average, each review cycle for an original submission or a submission after a major revision takes about 42 days according to the 2017 statistics.
2. What does exactly happen to my paper during a review process?
After a submission is received by CGF, it usually takes a number of steps before a decision is communicated back to the authors.
- An editorial assistant first checks the submission for formal criteria. Typical problems that occur at this stage include (i) the PDF file cannot be read; (ii) the proper template for CGF has not been followed; or (iii) the authors have selected an incorrect category (e.g., confusion about original submission, major revision, and invited submission). A typical decision for addressing any of these problems is <unsubmit>, allowing the authors to revise the submission. In the case of an incorrect category, the submission has to be withdrawn first in order to obtain a different submission ID.
- An editor-in-chief (EiC) , potentially together with a suitable associate editor (AE) from the editorial board, checks to see if it is technically appropriate to enter the submission into the full review process. Typical problems that occur at this stage include (a) the submission falls out of the scope of CGF; or (b) its technical quality is below the standard of CGF. If such a problem is confirmed, the typical decision is <administrative reject>, which is colloquially referred to as “desk-rejection”. Such a decision is made in the interest of both the authors and the potential reviewers. It is better to have a speedy decision than to enter the paper into the formal review cycle that would lead to further delay. Depending on how clear the case is, the decision is made solely by the EiC ( when the submission is obviously unsuitable for CGF) or jointly by the EiC and an AE after careful reading and some discussion. Note that sometimes this step can run in parallel to the check by the editorial assistant to expedite the process.
- The EiC then selects an AE on the CGF editorial board based on his/her expertise and current workload.
- If the submission is not a minor revision, the AE invites several external reviewers. Delays often occur at this stage as potential reviewers may take time to confirm their availability or unavailability, or may suggest alternative reviewers, to whom new invitations have to be sent. For a major revision, the AE tries to assign the previous reviewers, along with at least one fresh reviewer.
- The external reviewers evaluate the submission, completing their review as well as a recommendation selected from options <accept>, <minor revision>, <major revision>, and <reject>. Although the software system reminds the reviewers of the deadline of the reviews, some delays may still occur due to various reasons (e.g., vacations, personal circumstances, etc.).
- The AE considers the reviews and recommendations by the external reviewers, and makes an informed and balanced judgement in conjunction with his/her own reading of the paper. The AE then makes a decision and writes a summary review.
- The EiC considers the reviews and recommendations by the AE as well as the external reviewers. In most cases, the EiC concurs with the AE’s decision. In some cases, the EiC may suggest the AE to consider an alternative decision or to make minor changes to the summary review. In a very rare situation, the EiC may make a final decision different from the AE’s decision.
- If the submission is a minor revision, the AE checks if the authors have completed the revision satisfactorily. In some situations, the AE may selectively invite a specific external reviewer (e.g., who suggested some important revision requirements) to help evaluate the minor revision. The typical decision at this stage is either <accept> or another <minor revision>. In a very rare occasion where the authors refuse to meet reasonably specified revision requirements, a <reject> decision is still possible.
- After a submission is accepted, authors are required to submit a final version and to work with the Wiley production team to deliver a paper to be available in the Wiley CGF Early View Repository. It important that the authors do not make changes to the paper except typo corrections that are absolutely necessary. This is because any technical changes to the paper implies that the paper has to be re-entered into the review process.
3. What is the difference between a major revision or a minor revision?
The formal term for a major revision is <Resubmit with major revisions>, while that for a minor revision is <Probably accept after minor revisions>.
The authors can complete a major revision within four months following the notification, while the authors can complete a minor revision within two months.
In most cases, authors may have only one opportunity of a major revision, while the AE can make repeated requests for minor revisions (though one or two minor revisions are usually enough).
A major revision is always evaluated by the previous external reviewers and the AE, while a minor revision is usually evaluated only by the AE, though in some cases the AE may selectively invite a specific external reviewer (e.g., who suggested some important revision requirements) to help evaluate the minor revision.
A decision for a major revision means that the technical quality and novelty of the paper meets the bar of CGF in principle, but that (a) extra technical work is required, such as quantitative comparison with additional algorithms, additional application case studies, and additional user evaluation, or (b) a significant amount of rewriting or reformatting is necessary, such as a major restructuring of the manuscript, and reformatting the submission using the CGF template. On the other hand, a decision for a minor revision usually applies to the requirements for a small amount of rewriting, additional qualitative discourse, presentation improvement, and typo corrections.
4. Can I resubmit a paper previously rejected by CGF again to CGF?
Assuming that the authors have made serious revision of the paper according to the requirements of the previous reviews, the answer is YES.
5. What is administrative rejection?
This is a <reject> decision made by an EiC and potentially an AE before inviting external reviewers. Please see the second bullet of point 2. above for details.