Hi,

I got an an article in a journal recently accepted with minor revisions. I submitted the revisions within a few days, and thought that the editor would deal with them quickly. Mainly, it was only one table which needed amendments. But at my surprise, Elsevier management system is now displaying 'Under review' again. I guess it must mean that the editor wasn't too sure about the changes, and wanted to have another opinion.

Is this a common practice? Should I be worried about anything? Has anyone of you already had a similar experience?

Thanks for any tips shedding light on this shadowy ground of the publishing world!

There is "no" common practice.
One journal's common practice is to let you go through three "revise and re-submit".

I wouldn't worry too much about it, journals are a law unto themselves and there are no set rules. 'Under review' could simply mean that someone is checking your corrections. Most journals are really slow at this sort of thing, so don't worry! (should add that I work for a medical writing agency so have experience of submitting to loads of journals, and they are pretty much all as useless as each other!)

Hi Kippel,
Is the fate of your paper decided ?
I am in a similar situation. My paper is "under peer review" after "accept with minor revision". Im very worried.

If it was submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the corrected revisions are sent back to the original reviewers so they can take another look. Nothing to worry about, just standard practice.

Thanks lemonjuice.
It's been 80 days since I submitted the minor revision and I am still waiting for the final decision. I am keeping my fingers crossed, but this is so annoying!

Hi all,
I am wondering how the minor revision sent back to review finally worked out. I'm in a similar situation at the moment. Did the second review after the minor revisions were done take longer than the first? Or was the first also long (80 days sounds quite long)?
Thanks anyway..