-5

If we submit a research paper to a journal in Elsevier, then the status will be 'with editor' for some time. Later, the editor invites reviewers. The number of reviewers depends on the manuscript and in general 3 according to Elsiver. After inviting the reviewers, the status changes to 'under review'.

How many reviewers are assigned to a manuscript?

The number of reviewers often varies by manuscript type. Most papers receive feedback from three peer reviewers. Shorter papers, such as brief reports or current issues, may receive feedback from two peer reviewers. Some journal submissions such as commentaries and book reviews are reviewed by AJPM editors and do not undergo external peer review

When Elsevier provides the tracking link, it mentions a field Review invitations sent. If it says more reviewers than the recommended then what can one infer from that?

Suppose my paper is assigned six reviewers then can I need to infer that my paper is complex enough that need more reviwers?

hanugm
  • 7,779
  • 9
  • 43
  • 79
  • https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/80391/why-should-a-paper-be-reviewed-by-more-than-ten-reviewers – Anonymous Physicist Jul 02 '22 at 14:04
  • @AnonymousPhysicist I asked for the interpretation of '3+', which seems to be absent in the answers. The question you quoted does not explicitly deals with this. – hanugm Jul 02 '22 at 14:07
  • 3
    Consider not worrying about details of the review process that are beyond your control. It was easier back when one mailed off a large envelope and had no feedback until an envelope came back to you… – Jon Custer Jul 02 '22 at 14:42
  • @Anyon If we are uncertain about the number, it is recommended to keep 'n+'. But if the editor sends a review request to a particular number of reviewers, then what is the need to tell '>=n' instead of the exact number? So, there might be some information like the review process will be started if at least 'n' reviewers accept and the remaining can be extra or optional! – hanugm Jul 02 '22 at 15:25
  • 2
    @hanugm Why does any of this matter to you, the author, before you receive the decision and reviews back? What value is there in expending cognitive effort to learn the exact meaning of things that you can do nothing about? – Bryan Krause Jul 02 '22 at 16:14
  • @BryanKrause I'm just curious to know as I need to spend my entire life in academia. – hanugm Jul 02 '22 at 16:16
  • 1
    But why ever need to know, now or in 5 or 10 or 30 years? Doesn't seem like something anyone ever needs to know. Even the editor doesn't really need to know. Certainly after some time the software will change and won't say the same thing anyways. – Bryan Krause Jul 02 '22 at 17:11
  • @BryanKrause oh! I thought that there may be some semantics associated with this. But now, it seems to be just a random notation after your comments. – hanugm Jul 02 '22 at 18:14
  • @hanugm It seems likely that the message is intentionally set up to say n+ instead of a precise number because, in the view of the journal, the precise number should not matter to authors. It is possible that n is the threshold number of reports required to be completed before they take action on the manuscript, but there is insufficient information to conclude that from what you've written. From an author's point of view, there isn't much to do except waiting. If the editor manages to get n reports from n invitations, or if 2n invitations are required is out of the author's control. – Anyon Jul 03 '22 at 17:22
  • @hanugm As for your suggestion that the review process will be started only if at least n reviewers accept, I think that is unlikely. Such a system is bound to cause delays due to issues like "well, I was available when I accepted the invitation to review, but since you decided to wait three weeks for two more referees to accept I am no longer able to produce the review within the normal time frame". In all journals I've reviewed for, I've been able to access the manuscript either right away or directly after accepting the invitation to review. – Anyon Jul 03 '22 at 17:26

2 Answers2

2

The editor can send extra invitations. If 3 are required, it is not entirely clear that 3 out of X will answer, some will reject. I caution it's generally bad form to send huge volumes of requests, but an occasional exceedence is not terrible (for example, if you need 2 reviewers, asking 3 at the start strikes me as very reasonable). It is not uncommon for reviewers to reject an invitation (depending on journal prestige), so one would not want to "waste" acceptances or tarnish the journal's reputation by putting massive burdens on authors to respond to N+ reviewers.

I note this is particularly common as far as the filing system that tracks this information is concerned. If reviewers do not properly select "reject" then it may be the case that there invitation is still 'outstanding' though it is clear that they will not review.

RegressForward
  • 1,551
  • 7
  • 12
-1

I don't think you can conclude anything without actually asking (and you may not get an answer). It depend on the paper and where it fits in the general literature at the time it is submitted.

I suspect that if you were to provide a paper yielding a definite conclusion to the Riemann Hypothesis that it would be sent to something like 20 or more reviewers. Probably more.

Something like this actually happened not long ago, though I don't remember the details. It was, like Riemann's Hypothesis, a long standing and important question. Perhaps someone still active in math can give a reference.

Buffy
  • 363,966
  • 84
  • 956
  • 1,406
  • Wasn't that case a sham review process where the majority of reviewers had no qualifications to review that paper? https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/51965/39100 – Bryan Krause Jul 02 '22 at 16:16
  • 1
    @BryanKrause, not the case I'm thinking of, anyway. An important result from an important mathematician with a very complex proof. I don't actually know if it has been settled. And it wasn't related to the Riemann Hypothesis IIRC. – Buffy Jul 02 '22 at 16:18