Questions related to Auditing
I have submitted my manuscript revision one month ago. after submitting my revision my paper status was (with editor). Now from two, it shows the status of under-review, so what does it mean
I submitted my manuscript to one of the famous X journal last year. I got my third major revision mail today. I am kind of concerned about a rejection after 2 years of submission-revision process.
I am kindly asking about recommendations and opinions about it.
I received major revisions on my research paper, followed by minor revisions in which I addressed all the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
Core engineering lags: Content not revised by colleges for 4 decades
i am working in the topic " Revision of flora of kathmandu valley: GENTIANALES".
i am including taxonomic key, description and distribution map.
Also suggest that should i use the term "Taxonomic revision" or just "Revision " for the topic..
Me interesa la revisión del concepto MODELO Y DISEÑO , basado en SALUD PÚBLICA, PROMOCIÓN DE LA SALUD, DETERMINANTES SOCIALES DE LA SALUD, FUNCIONES ESENCIALES, posterior a la PANDEMIA.
Recently, I have sumitted my article to a journal (23 June), the editor suggested that major revision, the two reviewers are also interested in my article and ask some questions for my experiment. I have sumitted my revised manuscript (27 July), then the editor told me I need to revise my manuscript thoroughly due to the language issues. In addition, the editor recommdated the journal editing service and emphasized that my article may be rejected due to the language issues. Due to the expensive cost of the journal editing service, I would like to take a cheaper editing service. I wonder that if I don't use the journal editing service, will the editor approve my article? Or should I withdraw the article and resubmit to other journal?
The contents of the letter are as follows:
Thank you for your submission . Our impression is that the above-mentioned manuscript could become suitable for publication in ***. However, the quality and clarity of the language used in the manuscript would benefit from a thorough revision. Implementing these changes will enable our readers to focus on the scientific content of your manuscript. You might consider using a professional language polishing service, such as *** Language Editing Services.
Please note that your submission may be rejected due to language issues. For one example, the logic of the Introduction Section is poor. Please revise the manuscript thoroughly, and we will decide whether or not the revised version can be sent out for external review.
I submit a paper in a journal and the reviewer asks for the revision. In revision, I received these comments can anyone help me to guide me on it?
He said " Figure 9: Determination of optical band gap for --- nanoparticles with various concentrations (x = --). It is not again drawn properly; it seems like a tangent instead of a straight line from the curve using Tauc plots. I suggest drawing again in such a way that they interpolate the straight line from the curve."
"Since Eq. (33) is not suitable to calculate the magnetic anisotropy then it should have been removed from the revised manuscript. But, the Author retained it in the revised manuscript. I recommend the following articles once again to estimate the magnetic anisotropy using the Morrish law of saturation and all the articles to be cited in the revised manuscript with proper scientific discussions otherwise your article will be rejected."
Sometimes we can not understand a simple line and some others can understand that line easily so please guide me on this.
Thanks again in advance
My manuscript, which I sumbit to a journal of Sage in September 2022, passed the Editor stage and was taken for peer review. After 11 months, the referee evaluation was finalised. They rejected it without revision today. The editor said that "Although the reports are generally positive, we are unable to accept your submission for publication. This is due to the sheer volume of submissions we have received over the past few years. As a result, the acceptance rate had to be strongly reduced." There are contradictory statements that I cannot make sense of. How can an article with a "positive report" be rejected without revision after 11 months with the excuse of the acceptance rate of the journal? If they are sensitive to the acceptance rate, why do they take it to peer review and how do they see themselves the right to keep it waiting for 11 months? Isn't it unfair to keep them waiting for 11 months to give a direct rejection?
Despite the positive reports, they only showed me the review text of one referee. Unfortunately, the review of the referee full of contradictions is very superficial and there is not even a concrete argument and criticism. I cannot see the other reviews at all. After 11 months, I am very upset to be rejected with an acceptance rate excuse and an inconsistent referee review. What can I do against this situation? How can I claim my rights? How can I complain about the editor's unfair attitude and approach. I need your help very much. Thank you!
I want to add a co-author(who helped during revisions) in my paper at revision stage. But the submission portal does not allow it by following line "This journal has chosen to lock changes to the Author list. Please contact the Admin for changes to your Author list".
Please guide me, how to handle this issue? or share your experiences.
I served as a reviewer for journal B. I noticed that I already reviewed the same manuscript for journal A. I provided my comments (a couple of pages long) for improvement for journal A. However, the author (s) completely ignored my comments and made no changes to submit to journal B. The manuscript has been rejected by journal A because it does not meet the journal's quality standards.
I reported it to the journal editor and stated that I already reviewed this manuscript for another journal. The author (s) made no changes by reflecting on my comments.
My question is this: Do you think it should be the author’s academic freedom to revise or not to revise before submitting to another journal? Or should it be considered unethical practice? Also, should the manuscript be rejected if it is considered unethical?
what is the difference between major revision and revision with justification of criticisms in CBM journal?
I sent an email to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), Associate Editor (AE), and journal administrator inquiring about the possibility of extending the revision deadline, four days before the deadline. However, I did not receive any responses. In this situation, may I submit the original manuscript to the journal again?
I am using Gaussian09 Revision -C.01-SMP which is 32bit and I want to accelerate calculation time (the maximum available memory is 1500 MB; I think;) So, I am asking if anyone here can help and provide me with a 64bit version.
Thanks in advance.
Today (17 May) I removed an uploaded pre-print to fix some typographical errors.
Title: "What I Learned about What Exxon Knew."
On uploading the revised pre-print I could not use the prior Research Gate doi, and the upload process did not assign a new doi.
So, the revised pre-print does not have a doi. That's inconvenient. I'd like to communicate it by link.
Is it possible for RG to assign a new doi to the pre-print?
And let me know? :-)
Thanks very much,
Recently, I submitted a paper to Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. However, the COVID-19 situation at my institution has significantly impacted our academic activities, and I can’t submit the revised manuscript to TMTT in time.
Although I have sent an email to the manager and editor-in-chief of TMTT requesting an extension of the deadline, I am not sure if this request can be granted.
They mentioned, 'If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.' in the first decision email, which means that if I am unable to submit a revised manuscript, do I still have the opportunity to continue submitting to this journal?
Hi All! Im looking for examples of taxonomies for different groups that have changed over time. For example, in the Mimulus clade that used to study, the number of described species has fluctuated between 2 and 13 species, as different taxonomists revised the group. Ideally, I'd like to be able to show the timeline in number of species varying across multiple taxonomic revisions for the same group. I don't what the organism is.
For a clarification, I'm not just looking for groups where the taxonomy has changed (this is literally true for all groups), but temporal summaries (timelines) of how the number of species has changed across different revisions.
Is it logical for a reviewer to send different comments after R1? We recieved comments and after submitting the revised MS, all the changes were satisfactory to reviewers as they did not raise any query regarding previous comments. But, in R2 totally different comments were made on the manuscript.
Please select number or few numbers in your answer (i.e. 1,3,4) when you agree on the following statements:
Journals of MDPI publisher worth to be treated as predatory - 1.
Journals are very well managed and are at the same level as journals issued by other publishers - 2.
My revisions for manuscripts are equal, independently on the publisher - 3.
My revisions are ignored by Editors from MDPI - 4.
It’s just a war between “classical” and “modern“ - 5.
Our lab was working on a genus of invertebrate (taxonomic revisions and phylogeny). Suddenly we see a preprint in Research Gate, which has one of the new taxa attempted to be described that we are currently working on.
Interestingly the preprint is an unfinished manuscript which is still under review, but had a DOI number.
Is this ethical to do?, as we feel that this is clearly a research misconduct to prevent others from working on the taxa?
I have already revised some of the data streams (WDI, WID or world income inequality, Unctadstat, Ford) where quite a large number of data (yearwise) are missing. How to recover the data? Can I use data cleaning or other methods when many years of data are missing? Or, is there national data streams such as Department of Statistics which can provide the missing ones?
I was revising a scale and ran into some problems.
It is a second order model with two latent variables in the first order and a total score in the higher order.
When I was using AMOS for CFA, the correlation path that MI suggested to add appeared to be correlated across the two dimensions. It does not meet the TLI good-fit criteria without adding it.
But it is said that I cannot correlate across dimensions, which is said to indicate poor discriminant validity of the scale.
What should I do? I would be grateful for the help from experts.
International accounting standards aim to unify and standardize accounting globally.
They have been accepted in Macedonia since the 90s of the last century.
A period has passed where each standard was studied and interpreted individually.
Of course, in our country, today in North Macedonia, the IAS made a big step forward, and with the addition of the International Financial Reporting Standards and the International Auditing Standards, we gained progress in the accounting profession.
When the author revised the article based on reasons of desk rejection, do they reconsider them? Or do they have rules not to resubmit them? Or does it vary for each journals?
I submitted a paper to a journal (SCI Indexed) and after two rounds of revisions the decision has been made to Accept with minor revision.
The comments of the reviewers are:
1. Author addressed all my concerns. However, before proceeding to publication stage, check for grammatical and typographical errors to maintain the quality of this journal.
1. The authors resolved all my concern.
In response to this, I immediately proofread the manuscript and submitted to the journal.
It has been a more than a month now and the status of the paper is - Under Review on Editorial Manager.
What should I expect or do at this stage.
Greeting Respected RG Scientist and Researcher
I submitted a minor revision for my paper based on the comments by the editor and Reviewers 1 and 2. in Hindawi publisher. It has been over two months, but the status is still displayed as ‘Pending Approval.’ How much more time should I wait for a response?
not being a Gobids expert myself, I'd like to know if any manual on Gobidae identification is currently available, in particular from the Mediterranean. Something like the FAO: Fischer, W., M.-L. Bauchot et M. Schneider (rédacteurs), Fiches FAO d’identification des espèces pour les besoins de la pêche. (Révision 1). Méditerranée et mer Noire. Zone de pêche 37.
The editor commented that the manuscript in the current format is unsuitable for acceptance. However, the editor recommend to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers comment and resubmit the revised article. Will it be reviewed again by the same reviewers?
Hello guy‘s ,
What is the relationship between bit rate, bit sequence length and no of samples per bit? What are the effect towards time window, no of samples and samples rate? I have revised the OptiSystem Getting Started tutorial but still, does not understand. Anyone could help me
what is the formula that will be use in optistem , how to get values
if i take
rate bit = 1.25e-009 ,
what number should i take
sequence length and simple per bit ?
and simple rate ?
I have been reading about the SSI scale (Gadzella, 1991) and saw a revised version available (Gadzella, 2012). However, I am unable to find the scale containing 53 items. Does anyone know how to obtain the inventory?
Gadzella, B. M., Baloglu, M., Masten, W. G., & Wang, Q. (2012). Evaluation of the student life-stress inventory-revised. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(2).
This is the acceptance timeline of an article in the journal "Viruses" by mdpi.
Received: 27 October 2022/ Revised: 9 November 2022/ Accepted: 10 November 2022/ Published: 12 November 2022
Is this normal behavior?
This is not just one article. Almost all articles in all their journals have similar tracks.
Is PLOS ONE walking on the same path?
I have recently submitted a review article entitled "Role of c-Src and Reactive oxygen species in cardiovascular diseases" in a reputed journal. I have gone through all the technical revisions. Now editor is asking me to get my manuscript proofread by native english speaker who can understand my topic as well.
Can anyone help me?
I am relaxing the plastic crystal Li2SO4 (space group Fm-3m) using the Projector Augmented Wave (PAW) method and a revised PBE for solids (PBEsol). The INCAR I used can be found below. When relaxing the structure, the volume of Li2SO4 increases about ~30% compared to experimentally found values. I have also tried using ISIF = 2 and ISIF = 7 before using ISIF = 3, but this did not make a difference. I also relaxed the structure by performing an NpT simulation and found the volume to be much closer to experimental values.
Another plastic crystal (gamma-Na3PS4. Space groud Fddd) that I relaxed does not have this issue using the same INCAR, however it does have a much less densely packed unit cell. What could be causing this volume expansion?
I had submitted a paper in one of the reputed international journals. After initial checks, the editor of the journal sends my paper for review. I got the major comments (more than 20) from two reviewers suggested by the editor after two months. I had submitted the revised version of the manuscript after incorporating all the issues raised by the reviewers. Finally, the paper was accepted by two reviewers. This whole process took more than one year.
The editor of the journal gave me conditional acceptance and told me to reduce the number of words from the manuscript. According to the guidelines of the same journal, there is no limitation of words in the manuscript; however, my paper has less than 7500 words. I told the editor that now it is not possible to reduce the number of words in the manuscript, but the editor forced me again and again to reduce the number of words; therefore, I transferred many things from the original article to the supplementary material.
My manuscript has less than 6000 words after moving many essential things to the supplementary material, but the editor did not give acceptance and finally rejected my paper.
My concerns are:
1. If the editor wanted to reduce the number of words in the manuscript then why didn't he told me at the time of initial submission.
2. These two reviewers who accepted my manuscript was suggested by the editor, not by me.
3.Why the editor of the journal does not change the author guidelines where it is written that there is no limit of words.
I Submitted the revision of my manuscript and the academic editor made his recommendation in hindawi for more than month until now in quality check Pending approval
A descriptive anwer is expected from the researchers and editors with categorical illustration. Eg. SCI/ SCIE( Q1 to Q4)-Open acess or closed or hybrid/ Similarly ABDC and Scopus.
Dear all ,
On my paper, I received the following comment: "Formatting needs to be revised in detail." My understanding is that I need to check fonts, labels, etc., but the journal does not have a standard template. I would appreciate it if someone could explain this to me , what is mean by this comment ?
Does anyone here know a suitable journal for psychometric articles where the process of revising, reviewing, and publishing is fast, publishing is for free, and its Q1 and IF are between 4 and 7? If you know such a journal, please introduce it to me.
We have conducted a research in the field of environmental psychology and the reviewer has suggested to revise our work in order to avoid the statements expressing anthropomorphism. I am unable to understand the context behind this word. Please guide and suggest an alternative approach.
One of the reviewers gave a completely positive comment on my article, and the other requested revisions. Consequently, major revisions were requested. I have made the entire revision requested. The status of the article is on awaiting reviewer scores. Is the positive comment of the first reviewer also included in the final evaluation at this stage?
I have submitted a working paper in a conference. The call of paper precise that chosen papers will be submitted to recognised reviews. The conference was cancelled, but I received the comments of tow reviewers of a modest review. Am I obliged to continue the submission process in this review and send the revised paper, knowing that the call of paper didn't mention its name , or I can submit il elswhere. In other words is the state of my paper "submitted" ?
Dear Author, We received one revision and trying to find second reviewer. To this day we send request for 9 experts in this field (Including authors suggestions). They declined or ignored our invitations. We must search until someone agreed to take on this assignment. If you want to suggest someone else, you have to do it according to the following guidelines: Authors can suggest reviewers but they cannot be from the same institution as the authors, and at least one cannot be from the same country. With best regards,
What is the average time duration between revision submision and final decision for the Journal of biomolecular structure and dynamics?
After submission of revision before 18 days ago the final decision has not come yet. What is the chance of acceptance?
Generally speaking, a revision request means that the editor/reviewers see a merit in publishing your article, but some major/minor changes are required. A reject after revision is uncommon but it happens, what were the main reasons from the author’s side as well as the editor/ reviewers side of the story? Hopefully the answers will help others avoid these pitfalls in their responses to the reviewers!
I have found only a few studies based on China indicating that there is diminishing returns to environmental regulation in China. They measured such diminishing utility by including two variables related to level of environmental regulation: one variable indicating the level of regulation, and another squared term of the first variable. However, I failed to find any such study in the field of accounting and finance.
I would appreciate if someone can suggest any similar paper from the field of accounting and auditing.
I have four items on one scale, two are positively worded and two are negatively worded. If I revise the negative items, the scale earns a very low Cronbach's Alpha, but if I create a scale without revising the negatively worded items (include all the items as they were asked in the original questionnaire), the Cronbach's Alpha becomes powerful. I am getting confusion, is it okay to use negatively worded items without revising them?
Thank you for your answers in advance.
The largest speciose (More than 1000) genera which have a lot of gene sequences, it is very difficult to handle therefore I would like to know to form the experts to share their inputs to make World revisions based on Morphology or Molecular phylogeny. What steps for initiation, elongation, and soulful termination.
For example, I have drawn a building structure and assigned loads to it. Is there a way to change the beam properties without deleting the beam and its assigned load after running its analysis process?
No problem if there is just a beam, but if there are so many frames, it will take a long time to revise.
Sometimes I could change by double click the frame, but sometimes I couldn't. (unlocked condition)
I have been trying to login to submission site of Journal of General Management. Despite entering the correct login credentials I am not able to get through.
I tried resetting the password, however to no avail.
Is anybody facing similar problem or have encountered this issue in the past?
If yes, kindly help me.
I want to include the M062X functional instead of B3LYP. But, in my Gaussian it is not available. How, to include or add it in Gaussian?
The revised version underwent a pilot survey followed by a reliability test after a validation process employing face and content validity. Cronbach's Alpha is one of the options for measuring the reliability of a scale for a tool like a Likert Scale. What about a tool with questions/items on a nominal scale?
I had a major revision paper in Q2 journal and it was holding with the editor. Please, how can I resolve this issue?
I tried to send to them several emails without any reply. Please, how can I resolve the issue raise by them?
I wonder if I should wait for acknowledgement from the journal and comment from the reviewer or editor or just resend my revision?
I submitted a paper (meta-analysi) to a journal and it was sent for peer review the next day. After 6 weeks I got a decision to reject it though the editor-in-chief acknowledged that the peer review was positive!! in fact the two peer reviewers had only minor comments that should have led to minor revision rather than rejectio. the EIC justified the decision by stating the paper did not fall within the scope of the journal (yes; after been sent for peer review) and that they had more important papers to publish, and that they would not accept a revision of the manuscript. They did not reply to my email I sent to express my discontent and frustration. Is there any explanation other than conspiracy?
I am looking for a co-author and I wondering if you may be interested. The article was accepted in September 2021 for publication after peer review, but I don't have too much time to complete the process. Title of the Manuscript: Russia, Armed Groups and the Central African conflict African Journal of Political Science and International Relations Manuscript Number AJPSIR/10.09.21/1368 Current Status: First Revision Reminder
I revised a scale. 103 filled the scale. The internal consistency reliability score of the two sub-scales are 0.70 and 0.74. However, the internal consistency reliability of the total score is only 0.45.
Should I collect more data? Or, does it mean the two subscales are independent and it is not appropriate to calculate the total score?
I am using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the validity of a revised scale.
Seventy-five students filled the scale 4 times (day1, day2, day3, day4). May I analyze the total 75 * 4 scale data? If not, which one is better? Data in the first time?
I've been looking for recent regulations and matters that are linked to auditing to discuss for my research thesis. I could really use any suggestion regarding auditing, audit market, audit trends...
i. Although the suggested correction was very less raised by the 2 reviewers in their 2nd revision, why does the editor asked for major revision?
ii. Why does the editor has given me clues to solve each of the raised questions? Does it mean the learned editor is going to accepting my paper after updating the manuscript based on given suggestions by the reviewers?
“Early auditing theories were constructed by observing the practices of auditors”. Explain what type of theory construction is this? List the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.
We had submitted a manuscript on 25 Apr 2020 (please see the attachment 1) titled “Assessing the impact of Pakistani females' religious beliefs on sports by using Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire” to the Journal of Religion & Health for possible publication. Within time spend of 2 years we got not less than 7 revisions (please see the attachment 1) on different time and almost different comments every time. After almost 2nd revision we used MDPI service and spent 1600 CHF (please see attachment 5) for language correction. The latest comments sent by the editor were some statistical changings and recommendation of grammatical review (please see attachments 2 and 3). We used their recommended service and spent almost US$345 (please see attachment 4).
We submitted our last revision on Jan-2022 and waiting for the possibly acceptance email for 3 months (because last revision was just about the language and some minor changings in statistical analysis). And today we just got the rejection (please see the attachment 1) email from the Editor-in-Chief Journal of Religion and Health.
Though the outcome of the process is very disappointing because we used a lot of time, energy and money on the demand of journal, I would like to know from you scholars if there is any academic way to response such kind of journals? It’s not about only our paper, but this effort can also save the time and energy (may be money) of other scholars like you.
I really appreciate your understanding and suggestions.
Hubei Normal University, China.