Understanding the Switch from "Under Review" to "Reviewers Assigned"

Submitting a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal is a pivotal moment for any author or researcher. However, this can be a daunting task, often accompanied by confusion and uncertainty. One of the most perplexing occurrences is when the status of a manuscript changes from "under review" to "reviewers assigned," leaving authors questioning the implications of this shift.

Changing Manuscript Status

Although peer review can be a lengthy process, stretching over months, authors eagerly anticipate updates on the status of their manuscript. Despite journals offering tracking systems, the information provided may be sporadic or subject to frequent changes, leaving authors puzzled.

Decoding Status Updates

Understanding the significance of manuscript statuses is crucial. 'Reviewers assigned' indicates that experts have been sent an invitation to evaluate your paper, while 'under review' suggests that your manuscript is actively being assessed by reviewers.

So, why the sudden shift from 'under review' to 'reviewers assigned'? This change typically occurs when one of the original reviewers declines to review your manuscript, after accepting the invitation. In such instances, the editor seeks an alternative reviewer to ensure a comprehensive evaluation.

However, this change should not be cause for alarm. It is a common occurrence that arises from various circumstances.

Reasons for Reviewer Changes

There could be several reasons why a peer reviewer for your manuscript might be changed during the review process:

1.      Conflict of interest:

If the initially assigned reviewer realises that they have a potential conflict of interest, such as a close professional or personal relationship with the authors or a competing interest in the research topic, they may recuse themselves. In such cases, the journal will assign a different reviewer.

2.      Lack of expertise:

If during the review process, it becomes apparent that the assigned reviewer lacks the necessary expertise or familiarity with the specific topic or methodology used in the manuscript, the journal may decide to assign a more suitable reviewer.

3.      Quality concerns:

If the journal editors are not satisfied with the quality or thoroughness of the review provided by the assigned reviewer, they may opt to replace that reviewer with someone else to ensure a more comprehensive and constructive review.

4.      Failure to meet deadlines:

Reviewers are typically given a deadline to complete their review. Sometimes, reviewers may become unavailable due to unforeseen circumstances, such as illness, heavy workload, or other commitments. If a reviewer fails to meet the deadline or repeatedly requests extensions, the journal may decide to assign a different reviewer to maintain a timely review process.

5.      Editorial policies or practices:

Some journals may have policies or practices in place that require rotating or changing reviewers periodically, even if there are no specific concerns with the initial reviewer's performance.

In most cases, the journal’s editorial office will communicate with you about the change in the reviewer and may explain the decision, when enquired about the journal status. The goal is to ensure a fair, thorough, and timely review process for your manuscript.

It is natural for authors to feel unsettled by changes in manuscript status, but rest assured, such transitions are common occurrences and not necessarily cause for concern. Once the requisite number of reviewers accept the invitation, your manuscript will likely revert to the 'under review' status, signalling the continuation of the evaluation process.

While changes in manuscript status may initially raise questions, understanding the underlying reasons can offer clarity and reassurance to authors. By understanding the nature of the peer review process and referring to available resources, authors can ease their publication journey with resilience and determination. Remember, the fluctuations in your manuscript status do not reflect your work's quality but rather testify the meticulous nature of the review process.