Sending in a paper can feel like dropping it into a void. In a well-run journal, however, the paper passes through defined stages, and each one carries information for you. This guide walks through the review process from the author’s viewpoint at a low-fee, transparent, double-blind journal — with JMVRA as the example — so you understand every message and know how to respond. To see the same process from the journal’s side, read transparent peer review and the standard publication process. Knowing the stages in advance makes the waiting period far less stressful.
What Follows After You Press Submit
A confirmation message arrives with a paper ID; hold on to it, since all later correspondence refers to it. The editorial office next screens the paper, forwards it for double-blind review if it clears screening, and sends back a decision along with reviewer comments. Once a paper is accepted, the fee falls due and publication steps start. JMVRA sends decisions via email and WhatsApp.
Statuses Decoded
| Status | Meaning | What you should do |
|---|---|---|
| Submitted | Files have been received and recorded | Note down the paper ID; verify the confirmation details |
| Screening | Checks of scope, completeness and similarity are under way | Watch email and WhatsApp for queries |
| Under review | With independent reviewers | Wait, and do not submit elsewhere |
| Revision required | Reviewers have requested changes | Revise the paper and respond to every comment |
| Accepted | The paper satisfies the required standard | Pay via official channels; send the documents |
| Published | Article is live online, open access | Verify the details; ask for a DOI if you need one |
Parts of a Decision Letter
- Paper ID and title — check that it is your paper.
- The verdict — accept, minor revision, major revision or reject.
- Reviewer comments — typically numbered and grouped by reviewer.
- Editor’s notes — the priorities and any formatting requirements.
- Next steps — what you must send, and the method and destination.
Reading Reviewer Comments
| Type | Example | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Major — methodology or analysis | “The control group is not comparable.” | Greatest effort; new analysis may be needed |
| Major — claims | “The conclusion goes beyond the data.” | Substantial; revise the claims |
| Minor — clarity | “Define the variables in Table 2.” | Fast to resolve; do not ignore it |
| Minor — references | “Recent work by others is missing.” | Include it and discuss it briefly |
| Editorial | “Follow the journal template for headings.” | Correct it precisely as requested |
Affordable Publication With Transparent Review
JMVRA shares reviewers’ comments and their reasoning with authors. Nothing is charged to submit; ₹971 INR / $41 USD is payable only after acceptance.
Three Examples of Replying to Comments
| Comment | Weak answer | Strong answer |
|---|---|---|
| “The survey instrument is not described.” | “Done.” | “We have added the instrument’s source, item count and reliability (Section 3.2, page 4).” |
| “Results should be compared with other regions.” | “Out of scope.” | “We have added a comparison with two regional studies and noted the limits of comparability (Discussion, paragraph 3).” |
| “The title overstates the findings.” | “We disagree.” | “We agree the original title was broad and have revised it to reflect the sample and setting.” |
The best replies state what was altered and where. For a complete method, consult our guide to responding to reviewer comments.
What Is the Expected Timeline?
Reputable journals avoid promising a set review time, since it hinges on how available reviewers are and how much revision the paper requires. JMVRA does not commit to a fixed turnaround; decisions go out by email and WhatsApp once ready. What you can influence is your own part: a complete submission, prompt replies to queries and one thorough round of revision.
Your Ethical Responsibilities in Review
- Avoid sending the same paper to a different journal while it is being reviewed.
- Never attempt to identify or approach reviewers.
- Flag any mistake you find in your own data immediately.
- Keep every co-author in the loop and obtain their consent to revisions.
- Declare any fresh conflict of interest that emerges.
Indications That Review Is Fake
| Sign | Why it worries |
|---|---|
| Acceptance in a matter of hours without comments | It is impossible that a reviewer read the paper |
| Money demanded ahead of any decision | The outcome may hinge on payment |
| Remarks that could apply to any paper | Boilerplate or fabricated review |
| “Express acceptance” on offer for an extra-high fee | Acceptance is for sale |
After Acceptance
- Make the payment through the official channel named in the acceptance email.
- Submit the necessary documents, for example the copyright form or undertaking.
- Examine your article details closely once it is published.
- Download your certificate, and ask for a Crossref DOI if one is needed.
- Link the paper to ORCID and Google Scholar, and share the article link.
Reasons Papers Are Sent Back at Screening
| Problem | How to avoid it |
|---|---|
| Beyond the journal’s scope | Look through recent issues before you submit |
| Does not follow the journal template | Use the template for formatting from the beginning |
| Similarity over the permitted limit | Paraphrase and cite; stay below 15% at JMVRA |
| Author details or declarations missing | Fill in every field and form |
| Paper lacks parts (no methods or references) | Send a full research article |
Screening problems are the simplest delays to avoid, as they rest wholly on the files you submit.
Planning a Revision
| Step | Output |
|---|---|
| List every comment | A numbered table with one row for each comment |
| Classify each comment | Classified as major, minor or editorial |
| Assign co-authors | Which author deals with each comment |
| Make the changes | Marked with tracked changes or highlighting in the manuscript |
| Write the response | For each comment, what was changed and where |
| Final check | Approval from all co-authors; the template is still respected |
When and How to Lodge an Appeal
An appeal makes sense when a decision depends on a plain factual mistake — for instance, a reviewer claims a method is absent although Section 3 describes it. Write one polite message to the editorial office giving your paper ID, the exact error and the place in the manuscript where the evidence appears. Differences of interpretation, or simple disappointment at the outcome, do not justify an appeal; put the comments to work improving the paper for another journal.
How to Withdraw a Paper Correctly
- Write to the editorial office giving your paper ID, title and a brief reason.
- Hold on until you receive written confirmation of the withdrawal.
- Only after that should you send the paper to another journal.
Submitting elsewhere before the withdrawal is confirmed is simultaneous submission, which journals regard as misconduct.
Getting in Touch With the Editorial Office
Brief, precise messages receive the fastest and clearest answers. Compare:
| Weak message | Strong message |
|---|---|
| “Any update on my paper?” | “Paper ID 12345, ‘Title’: submitted on 2 September; could you confirm the current stage?” |
| “Please change the author.” | “Paper ID 12345: please correct the second author’s affiliation to ‘Department of Botany, X University’. All authors agree.” |
| “Payment done.” | “Paper ID 12345: fee paid on 10 October, transaction reference ABC123, receipt attached.” |
At JMVRA, email [email protected] or message on WhatsApp +91 91063 65667, and always quote your paper ID.
Verifying Your Published Details
- Names and order of all authors, spelled as each person wants.
- Affiliations covering department, institution, city and country.
- Title and abstract, free of characters lost during conversion.
- Tables and figures that are legible and numbered correctly.
- References that are complete and uniform in style.
Tell the editorial office about any error immediately, quoting your paper ID; fixes are easiest before a DOI is registered and before the article circulates widely. Checking early spares you awkward corrections later.
Author Checklist
- Paper ID storedTaken from the confirmation
- Working contact detailsEmail and phone to receive decisions
- A single journalNo parallel submissions
- All comments answeredChanges located
- Official paymentAfter acceptance only
- Details verifiedOnce published
Practical Tips for Handling the Journal Review Process Calmly
Waiting for a decision can be stressful, and reactions made in haste often cause avoidable problems. These suggestions help you respond to each stage of review professionally and keep your paper moving.
- Wait before replying. After a difficult decision letter, put it aside for a day. Rereading with a clear head often reveals constructive points that irritation had hidden.
- Organise comments by theme. Group reviewer remarks into method, data, writing and interpretation. Tackling them theme by theme makes revisions coherent and prevents one change from contradicting another.
- Disagree with evidence. If you believe a comment is mistaken, explain why using data or citations, in a courteous tone. Editors respond well to reasoned rebuttals and poorly to defensive language.
- Follow editorial etiquette. Avoid submitting the same manuscript elsewhere while it is under consideration, and send status queries only after a reasonable wait. Patience and courtesy build trust with the editorial office.
Stay patient, answer every comment with evidence and courtesy, and treat the editorial office as a partner in improving your paper.
Questions Researchers Often Ask
In Summary
Once you understand what every stage means, waiting becomes a chance to prepare. Have your paper ID and contact details handy, read decision letters with a cool head, reply to every comment with specifics, respect the ethics of review and pay only after acceptance. A low-fee journal with transparent review should offer precisely this experience. Related: low-cost journal publication and what publication fees pay for.
Ready to send in your paper?
Submitting to JMVRA is online and free of charge. A paper is screened, then goes through transparent double-blind peer review; ₹971 INR (Indian authors) or $41 USD (foreign authors) falls due only after acceptance. Save every confirmation email for your records.
Taking a Draft Through to a Published Paper
- PrepareStick to the template and author guidelines
- Submit onlineCosts nothing; write down your paper ID
- ScreeningSubject fit, declarations, and similarity below 15%
- Double-blind reviewDecision by email and WhatsApp
- AcceptedPay ₹971 INR / $41 USD, after which the paper is published in open access
More details: Publication guidelines · Peer review · Publication charges.
Ready to Publish? Submit to JMVRA
JMVRA is aligned with UGC's Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals.
JMVRA is a Transparent, Peer-Reviewed, Open Access Journal (Refereed Journal). Following the discontinuation of the UGC and UGC-CARE journal listing, and in alignment with the latest UGC-CARE recommendations and guidelines, JMVRA is aligned with UGC’s Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals.
Further reading on jmvra.org
Key Terms
Subjects and search phrases this article addresses.
Related Reading
Further guides on affordable, peer-reviewed publishing.
Keep Reading on the JMVRA Blog
This article sits on the JMVRA journal blog, where practical guidance covering publishing, indexing, metrics and research integrity is written to be verifiable, not promotional.