We're usually happy to grant extensions, and even if some time has passed, it's generally better to extend the deadline for a current reviewer than try to find a new one. Family members get sick, snow days happen, academic life is full of interruptions, and sometimes reviewers know they just won't be able to finish a review.
If this has happened with your paper, there's not much you can do; we'll have to find a new reviewer on a quick deadline and hope for the best. Often, the problem with a long review period isn't that the reviewers are dragging their feet, but that we're having trouble assigning them in the first place.
Maybe the NIH grant application deadlines have rolled around and all potential reviewers are busy. Or maybe it's August, or around winter holidays, and they're all on vacation. Chances are, if you're on holiday, your colleagues are as well! This issue can crop up year-round, but if you've submitted a tricky paper in a niche field just before heading out to the niche field's yearly can't-miss conference, don't be surprised if the review takes a little longer!
When a revision has come in, we try to make sure it's reviewed by the same people who looked over the original version, to make sure there's consistency in the recommendations. However, reviewers who had open schedules when the initial paper was submitted might now have become busy.
If your paper was reviewed speedily the first time but now seems to be taking forever, it probably doesn't mean you've messed up the revision. The reviewers don't hate your paper; they're just much busier than they were the first time around. Sometimes peer review takes longer because the science presented is complicated, or because the situation in a given scientific field is complicated, with competing ideas, models, and theories.
From time to time, the handling editor may need to seek additional opinions or advice after receiving comments from all the reviewers, or involve reviewers who have already evaluated the work in follow-up discussions. Our editors don't make a decision to prolong the peer review process lightly, but the priority is always to get the best recommendations.
On average, our reviewers are timely, but we do account for a certain level of regular delay we ask for reviews back within 10 days but in turn tell authors to expect about a month.
We keep track of all our reviewers' review histories, and editors do access that information when selecting reviewers; as important as expertise is, chronic tardiness will definitely impact an editor's choice of reviewer. The most frustrating situation that we encounter is when a reviewer who accepted the assignment and who initially kept in touch stops responding to us. Finalize all images and text in your app before sending it in for review.
Apps that are still in progress and contain placeholder content are not ready to be distributed and cannot be approved. When requesting permission to access user or usage data, you should clearly and completely describe how your app will use the data. Including an example can help users understand why your app is requesting access to their personal information. All apps submitted to the App Store that access user data are required to include a purpose string. Learn about requesting permission.
This helps users understand your app and makes for a positive App Store experience. If some features require signing in, provide a valid demo account username and password. If there are special configurations to set, include the specifics. If features require an environment that is hard to replicate or require specific hardware, be prepared to provide a demo video or the hardware.
Also, please make sure your contact information is complete and up-to-date. Apple places a high value on clean, refined, and user-friendly interfaces. Your app should be engaging and useful, and make the most of the features unique to iOS.
Websites served in an iOS app, web content that is not formatted for iOS, and limited web interactions do not make a quality app. Submitting several apps that are essentially the same ties up the App Review process and risks the rejection of your apps. App submitted to Apple on January 18, reviewed and passed within 2 hours.
App rejected by developer on January 19 as we last minute noticed a large bug. App submitted to Apple on January App now rejected by Apple on January 19 even though the only change was a bug fix. Stuck "Waiting For Review" until at least today, January 26th. Posted by legasafe. Posted by KMT. Edit: Ah no I had no problem with them running the app through review again, I just meant they rejected it a second time even though they passed it the first.
Did you request an expedited review? I just submitted for an expedited review with a very detailed explanation of the issue. How many ERs have you requested so far? Perhaps you hit the limit of 3? I think our last was in Posted by chuckc Hey Alifar, I'd also like to know -- what happened with your app update that was escalated to the "appropriate internal team"?
Was the update eventually approved? How long did it take to hear back? Posted by clayko. I posted an app for review 19 days ago. Then I requested expedited. In this stage, the editor identifies a few reviewers for your paper and sends out email invitations to them. Once the required number of reviewers accept the review invitation, the status changes to "Under review.
While this may take some time, in your case, it's been nearly 4 months now. I think it would be a good idea to send an inquiry to the editor. You will also find this ebook useful: A guide to understanding journal statuses.
Related reading: Peer review process and editorial decision making at journals. Answered by Editage Insights on 18 Sep,
0コメント