The Paper Received Highly Excellent Feedback, Including the Phrases “High Quality,” “Well-Written,” and “Fit for Publication in the Journal.” However, My Worry Is Why My Paper Has Been “With Editor” for Two Weeks After the Initial Revision Was Sent?

For many PhD scholars, academic researchers, and early-career faculty members, few moments feel more encouraging than receiving reviewer comments that describe a manuscript as “high quality,” “well-written,” and “fit for publication in the journal.” Yet that excitement can quickly turn into anxiety when the submission system continues to show “with editor” for two weeks after the initial revision was sent. This is why the focus question matters: The paper received highly excellent feedback, including the phrases “high quality,” “well-written,” and “fit for publication in the journal.” However, my worry is why my paper has been “with editor” for two weeks after the initial revision was sent?

This concern is common, valid, and deeply human. A research paper often represents years of reading, data collection, analysis, writing, rewriting, supervision, and emotional investment. For PhD scholars, the stakes can feel even higher. A single publication may affect thesis submission, viva readiness, faculty applications, postdoctoral opportunities, grant proposals, and institutional performance reviews. Therefore, when a manuscript receives strong feedback but does not immediately move to acceptance, uncertainty can feel stressful.

However, a two-week “with editor” status after revision does not usually mean rejection. In many journal workflows, it means the editor is checking the revised manuscript, comparing the response letter with reviewer comments, deciding whether another round of peer review is needed, or waiting for an associate editor’s recommendation. Elsevier notes that authors can track submissions through the editorial system as the manuscript moves toward a decision, while Springer Nature explains that editorial checks include authorship, competing interests, ethics approval, plagiarism, and whether the manuscript contains what editors and reviewers need for fair assessment. (www.elsevier.com)

Across global academia, publication pressure continues to rise. Doctoral students face intense demands to publish in indexed journals, improve academic writing quality, comply with journal formatting rules, answer reviewer comments professionally, and avoid delays that may affect graduation. At the same time, journals manage growing submission volumes, limited reviewer availability, ethical checks, and editorial workload. This means that even a promising paper can spend days or weeks in an editorial queue.

This article explains what “with editor” means after revision, why a positively reviewed paper may still take time, when you should wait, when you should send a polite inquiry, and how professional academic editing and publication support can help. It also shows how ContentXprtz, a global academic support provider established in 2010, assists students, PhD scholars, universities, and researchers in more than 110 countries through ethical editing, proofreading, dissertation refinement, research paper support, and publication assistance.

Understanding the “With Editor” Status After Revision

The status “with editor” usually means your manuscript is currently under editorial handling. It does not automatically mean the paper has been rejected, ignored, or placed in a problematic category. After a revision, the editor may need to complete several tasks before making a final decision.

First, the editor may check whether you submitted all required revision files. These may include the revised manuscript, clean version, tracked-changes version, response-to-reviewers letter, conflict-of-interest declaration, ethics statement, data availability statement, figures, tables, and supplementary files. Elsevier’s Editorial Manager guidance explains that revised submissions may involve author approval, revision checks, and editorial handling before the manuscript progresses further. (Elsevier Support)

Second, the editor may evaluate whether your responses adequately address reviewer concerns. Even when reviewers use positive language such as “high quality” and “well-written,” they may still expect clarification, restructuring, additional citations, stronger methodological justification, or improved discussion. The phrase “fit for publication in the journal” is encouraging, but it may not equal immediate acceptance.

Third, the editor may decide whether the revised paper should return to reviewers. Emerald’s peer review guidance explains that after authors resubmit a revised paper, the editor may either make a decision based on the revision or send the manuscript back to the same reviewers. (Emerald Publishing)

Therefore, a two-week wait can be normal. In fact, it often reflects editorial diligence rather than a negative signal.

Why Excellent Feedback Does Not Always Mean Immediate Acceptance

When a reviewer says a paper is “high quality,” “well-written,” and “fit for publication in the journal,” the feedback signals strong potential. However, journals follow structured editorial decision processes. Reviewers recommend. Editors decide.

An editor must consider reviewer comments, journal scope, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, originality, formatting, and production readiness. Springer’s author guidance explains that revision letters usually outline required changes and instructions for returning the revised manuscript. The editor must then judge whether the authors handled these points adequately. (Springer)

Several situations may explain the delay:

• The editor is reviewing your response letter carefully.
• The revised manuscript needs a final technical check.
• The editor wants confirmation from one reviewer.
• The associate editor is preparing a recommendation.
• The editor-in-chief must approve the final decision.
• The journal office is handling a backlog.
• The manuscript has formatting, ethics, authorship, or data statement checks.
• The paper may be moving toward acceptance but still needs administrative clearance.

In other words, the status is not a verdict. It is a stage.

For PhD scholars, this distinction matters. Anxiety often increases when submission systems show vague status labels. Yet these labels rarely communicate the full editorial context. A manuscript can be close to acceptance and still remain “with editor” for several weeks.

What Happens After You Submit a Revised Manuscript?

After revision submission, the journal usually follows a process similar to this:

1. Technical screening: The editorial office checks file completeness, formatting, declarations, and required documents.
2. Editorial assessment: The handling editor reads the response letter and revised manuscript.
3. Reviewer decision: The editor decides whether external re-review is needed.
4. Final recommendation: The associate editor may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
5. Editor-in-chief review: Some journals require final approval from a senior editor.
6. Decision release: The system updates once the decision is formally recorded.

Taylor & Francis advises authors to read reviewer and editor advice carefully, decide what changes to make, and use revision as a way to strengthen the final article. This supports the idea that revision is not merely a correction stage. It is part of scholarly development. (Author Services)

If your revised paper is still “with editor” after two weeks, it may simply be in one of these steps.

Is Two Weeks “With Editor” After Revision Normal?

Yes, two weeks is generally normal. It can feel long to the author, but it is not unusual in journal publishing.

A revised manuscript often moves faster than a new submission because reviewers and editors already know the paper. However, faster does not mean instant. Editors may manage many manuscripts, teach, supervise, conduct research, review grant applications, and serve on editorial boards. Journal publishing depends heavily on academic labor, and delays can occur even when the manuscript is strong.

Emerald suggests that authors may receive 30 days for minor revisions and 90 days for major revisions, depending on the revision scale. This shows that journals treat revision as a serious stage, not a formality. (Emerald Publishing)

A two-week status is usually not a reason to worry. A more practical threshold is around four weeks, especially if the journal usually provides faster updates. If no change occurs after four to six weeks, a polite inquiry becomes reasonable.

When Should You Contact the Journal Editor?

You should avoid sending repeated emails too early. However, you also do not need to remain silent forever. A professional inquiry is acceptable when the delay exceeds the journal’s usual timeline or when your thesis submission, funding deadline, or graduation requirement depends on the decision.

A good rule is this:

Wait at least three to four weeks after revision submission before contacting the journal, unless the journal gives a shorter expected timeline or your case is urgent.

Your email should be polite, concise, and respectful. Avoid sounding impatient. Also, avoid suggesting that positive reviewer feedback should guarantee acceptance. Instead, ask whether any further information is required from your side.

Sample Email to the Journal

Subject: Inquiry Regarding Revised Manuscript Status

Dear Professor [Editor’s Name],

I hope you are doing well.

I am writing to kindly inquire about the status of my revised manuscript titled “[Manuscript Title],” submitted on [Date], with manuscript ID [ID Number]. The current status shows “with editor,” and I wanted to check whether any additional information or documentation is required from my side.

I sincerely appreciate the time and effort of the editorial team and reviewers in evaluating my work.

Thank you for your guidance.

Kind regards,
[Your Name]

This email is professional because it does not pressure the editor. It shows respect, provides details, and keeps the door open for assistance.

How to Interpret Positive Reviewer Language

Positive reviewer language can mean several things. It may indicate that your study contributes to the field, matches the journal scope, and demonstrates strong writing quality. However, reviewers often combine praise with required improvements.

For example, a reviewer may write:

“The manuscript is high quality and well-written. It is fit for publication in the journal after the authors clarify the sampling strategy and strengthen the discussion.”

This statement is positive, but it still contains conditions. The editor will check whether those conditions have been met.

Therefore, authors should read reviewer praise carefully but should not interpret it as a final decision. The final decision comes only from the editor.

Why the Response-to-Reviewers Letter Matters So Much

The response letter is often the most important document after revision. It tells the editor exactly how you handled each comment. A strong response letter can reduce delay because it makes editorial review easier.

A good response letter should:

• Thank the editor and reviewers professionally.
• Address every comment separately.
• Quote or summarize each reviewer point.
• Explain what was changed and where.
• Provide page, paragraph, table, or line references.
• Justify respectfully when you disagree.
• Avoid emotional or defensive language.
• Maintain consistency with the revised manuscript.

For example:

Reviewer Comment: The discussion needs stronger theoretical positioning.
Author Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the discussion section to connect the findings more clearly with [Theory Name]. The new explanation appears in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the discussion section.

This structure saves the editor time. It also demonstrates scholarly maturity.

At ContentXprtz, our research paper writing support focuses on ethical revision improvement. We help researchers refine response letters, improve manuscript clarity, and align revisions with journal expectations without compromising authorship integrity.

Academic Editing and Ethical Publication Support

Academic editing is not about changing the author’s intellectual contribution. It is about improving clarity, structure, grammar, style, argument flow, journal fit, and publication readiness. Ethical editing helps authors express their own research more effectively.

The American Psychological Association emphasizes clear scholarly communication, accurate citation, and responsible writing practices through its publication guidance. Researchers should ensure that manuscripts communicate evidence transparently and follow ethical standards. APA Style and Grammar Guidelines provide useful support for scholarly writing conventions.

Professional academic editing can help with:

• Language polishing
• Sentence clarity
• Academic tone
• Journal formatting
• Reference consistency
• Abstract refinement
• Discussion strengthening
• Reviewer response editing
• Plagiarism risk reduction
• Manuscript structure improvement

For PhD scholars, this support can reduce stress and improve confidence. It can also help supervisors and co-authors review a cleaner document.

ContentXprtz provides PhD thesis help for doctoral scholars who need structured support with thesis chapters, manuscript refinement, journal submission preparation, and revision response improvement.

Why PhD Scholars Feel Publication Anxiety

Publication anxiety is not simply impatience. It often comes from real academic pressure. Many PhD programs expect scholars to publish before thesis submission. Some universities require Scopus-indexed, Web of Science, ABDC, ABS, or UGC CARE publications. Funding bodies may also expect publication evidence.

At the same time, journal acceptance rates can be highly selective, especially in high-impact journals. Top journals often reject a large share of submissions due to scope mismatch, methodological weakness, novelty concerns, or writing quality. Even strong papers may face several revision rounds.

This creates a difficult situation for scholars. They must produce original research, meet supervisor expectations, manage teaching or employment, handle data analysis, and respond to reviewers. Therefore, a manuscript stuck “with editor” can feel emotionally heavy.

However, patience and professionalism are part of the publication journey. A calm, strategic approach works better than fear-based decisions.

What You Should Do While Waiting

When your revised paper remains “with editor,” use the waiting period productively.

First, reread your revised manuscript and response letter. Keep a copy ready in case the editor asks for clarification. Second, review the journal’s author guidelines again. Taylor & Francis recommends checking submission requirements and editorial policies before submission, which also applies during revision. (Author Services)

Third, prepare your next research output. If the paper gets accepted, you may need to update your CV, institutional repository, ORCID profile, Google Scholar profile, or thesis publication chapter. If the editor requests another minor revision, you will be ready.

Fourth, avoid submitting the same manuscript elsewhere while it remains under consideration. Duplicate submission violates publication ethics.

Finally, seek professional support if you feel unsure about your revision quality. ContentXprtz offers academic editing services for students and scholars who need clarity, structure, proofreading, and publication-oriented refinement.

Common Mistakes Authors Make After Positive Reviews

Positive reviews can make authors relaxed. Yet this is the stage where precision matters most.

Avoid these mistakes:

• Assuming acceptance before receiving the decision letter.
• Sending anxious emails too early.
• Ignoring minor reviewer comments.
• Uploading only a clean copy without tracked changes, if required.
• Forgetting supplementary files.
• Making new changes not explained in the response letter.
• Responding defensively to reviewers.
• Overstating reviewer praise in communication with the editor.
• Missing journal formatting instructions.
• Submitting the same article elsewhere while waiting.

A revised manuscript should feel complete, traceable, and professionally presented. Editors appreciate authors who make their evaluation easier.

The Role of Journal Fit in Final Editorial Decisions

The phrase “fit for publication in the journal” is powerful because journal fit is one of the most important editorial criteria. A paper may be well-written and methodologically sound, but still unsuitable if it does not match the journal’s aims, audience, theoretical contribution, or article type.

Elsevier advises authors to understand the editorial process and evaluate how editors assess research during submission and decision. (www.elsevier.com) Springer Nature also highlights quality checks that help ensure editors and reviewers have what they need for fair assessment. (Springer Nature Support)

A manuscript that reviewers consider journal-fit may still need final editorial alignment. The editor may ask:

• Does the paper contribute clearly to the journal’s readership?
• Does the revision address all concerns?
• Is the methodology transparent?
• Are limitations stated responsibly?
• Is the literature current and relevant?
• Are ethical declarations complete?
• Does the paper meet publication standards?

This is why professional manuscript preparation matters. A strong paper must not only be written well. It must also be positioned well.

How ContentXprtz Supports Scholars During Revision

ContentXprtz helps scholars handle the most stressful parts of academic writing and publication. Since 2010, we have supported researchers, PhD scholars, universities, students, and professionals in more than 110 countries. Our virtual offices in India, Australia, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, London, and New Jersey allow regional teams to support researchers locally while maintaining global standards.

Our services include:

• PhD thesis editing
• Dissertation proofreading
• Research paper refinement
• Journal formatting
• Reviewer response editing
• Manuscript language polishing
• Publication support
• Academic style improvement
• Citation and reference checks
• Structural editing for clarity

Researchers who need broader writing support can explore our PhD and academic services. Scholars preparing manuscripts, journal articles, or revision packages can review our writing and publishing services. Professionals and institutions can also access corporate writing services, while authors developing scholarly books can explore book authors writing services.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why has my revised manuscript been “with editor” for two weeks after positive feedback?

A revised manuscript may remain “with editor” for two weeks because the editor is still evaluating the revision. This is common and usually not a negative sign. After revision, the editor must compare your response letter with reviewer comments, check whether the revised manuscript addresses all concerns, and decide whether the paper should return to reviewers. In some journals, the associate editor prepares a recommendation before the editor-in-chief confirms the decision. This can take time, especially during busy academic periods.

Positive reviewer feedback such as “high quality,” “well-written,” and “fit for publication in the journal” is encouraging. However, it does not replace the editor’s decision. Reviewers advise, but editors decide. The editor may still need to check technical files, ethical statements, formatting, supplementary materials, and data availability. Therefore, two weeks is generally within a normal waiting period.

You should monitor the system calmly. If the status remains unchanged after four weeks, you may send a polite inquiry. Keep your message brief and professional. Ask whether the editorial office needs any further information. Do not imply that the paper should already be accepted. A respectful tone protects your scholarly relationship with the journal.

Does “with editor” after revision mean the paper will be accepted?

No, “with editor” does not guarantee acceptance. It also does not mean rejection. It simply means the manuscript is under editorial consideration. The editor may be assessing the revised paper, checking reviewer responses, reviewing technical compliance, or deciding whether another round of peer review is needed.

After revision, several outcomes remain possible. The editor may accept the paper, request minor changes, send the paper back to reviewers, ask for another major revision, or reject the paper if concerns remain unresolved. However, if the initial feedback was highly positive and your revision addressed all comments carefully, the probability of a favorable outcome may improve.

The best approach is to focus on what you can control. Make sure your response letter is clear. Ensure that every reviewer comment has been addressed. Confirm that all required files were uploaded correctly. Also, review the journal’s instructions for authors. This reduces preventable delays.

If you feel unsure about your revision package, professional academic editing can help. ContentXprtz supports researchers with response letters, manuscript polishing, formatting, and publication-ready revision files. This guidance can improve clarity and reduce editorial friction.

Should I email the editor if the paper is “with editor” for two weeks?

Usually, two weeks is too early to email the editor unless the journal has stated a shorter timeline or you have a serious institutional deadline. Many editors handle large workloads. A two-week wait after revision often falls within normal editorial processing time.

A better approach is to wait for three to four weeks. If the status remains unchanged, you can send a polite inquiry. Your email should include the manuscript title, ID number, revision submission date, and a short request for an update. You should also ask whether the journal requires anything from your side.

Avoid emotional wording. Do not say that the delay is causing stress, even if it is. Do not mention that reviewers called the paper “high quality” as a reason for faster acceptance. Instead, keep the tone professional and respectful.

For PhD scholars, this can be difficult because publication timelines may affect thesis milestones. Still, professional communication matters. Editors are more likely to respond positively when authors show patience, clarity, and respect.

Can a paper be rejected after receiving excellent reviewer comments?

Yes, a paper can still be rejected after receiving positive reviewer comments, although strong feedback often improves the outlook. A rejection may happen if the editor believes key concerns remain unresolved, the paper does not fit the journal’s final priorities, the revision introduces new problems, or reviewer recommendations conflict.

For example, one reviewer may say the manuscript is well-written, while another may raise serious concerns about methodology, originality, data interpretation, or theoretical contribution. The editor must weigh all comments. The editor may also apply journal-level criteria that reviewers do not fully address.

However, excellent comments are still valuable. They indicate that your work has scholarly merit. If the current journal does not accept the paper, those comments can guide a stronger submission elsewhere. You may also use the revised version as a more mature manuscript for another target journal, provided you withdraw properly if needed and follow publication ethics.

The key lesson is simple. Treat positive feedback as encouragement, not as a final decision. Continue acting professionally until the official decision arrives.

What should I check after submitting a revised manuscript?

After submitting a revised manuscript, check whether all required files were uploaded correctly. These usually include a revised clean manuscript, a tracked-changes manuscript, a response-to-reviewers letter, figures, tables, supplementary files, ethical declarations, funding statement, conflict-of-interest statement, and data availability statement.

Next, confirm that the manuscript version matches the response letter. If your response letter says you revised the discussion, the revised manuscript should clearly show that change. If you added references, make sure they appear in both the text and reference list. If you changed tables or figures, ensure numbering remains correct.

You should also check journal formatting. Some journals require specific reference styles, word limits, figure resolution, title page format, anonymized files, or structured abstracts. Missing requirements can delay processing.

Finally, save confirmation emails and screenshots from the submission system. These records help if you need to contact the editorial office later. A well-organized revision package shows professionalism and reduces the chance of avoidable delay.

How can I write a strong response-to-reviewers letter?

A strong response-to-reviewers letter is clear, respectful, complete, and easy to follow. Start by thanking the editor and reviewers for their time. Then address each comment one by one. Use headings such as Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, and Editor Comments. Under each comment, provide your response and identify where changes appear in the manuscript.

For example, you can write: “Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the methodology section to clarify the sampling process. The revision appears in paragraph 2 of the methodology section.” This response is professional because it acknowledges the comment, explains the action, and guides the editor to the exact change.

If you disagree with a reviewer, remain polite. Explain your reasoning with evidence. Avoid phrases such as “the reviewer is wrong.” Instead, write, “We respectfully agree that this point is important. However, we have retained the original approach because…” Then justify your decision.

A strong response letter can speed editorial evaluation. It shows that you took the review process seriously and handled scholarly critique responsibly.

How does academic editing improve publication readiness?

Academic editing improves publication readiness by making the manuscript clearer, more coherent, and more aligned with journal expectations. Many manuscripts contain strong research but suffer from unclear sentence structure, weak transitions, inconsistent terminology, formatting problems, or underdeveloped arguments. Editing helps remove these barriers.

Professional academic editing can improve the title, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. It can also help authors reduce repetition, improve logical flow, strengthen academic tone, and ensure consistency across sections.

For non-native English speakers, editing can be especially helpful. It allows the research contribution to stand out without being weakened by grammar or style issues. For native English speakers, editing still matters because academic publishing requires precision, structure, and journal-specific style.

Ethical editing does not replace the researcher’s ideas. Instead, it helps communicate those ideas more effectively. At ContentXprtz, our editing process respects authorship, academic integrity, and disciplinary conventions.

What if my PhD deadline depends on this publication?

If your PhD deadline depends on the journal decision, you should remain calm but proactive. First, check your university’s publication requirement. Some institutions accept proof of submission, acceptance, online-first publication, DOI assignment, or final publication. Others require the article to appear in a specific indexed journal category.

Second, inform your supervisor about the current status. Share the reviewer comments, revision confirmation, and manuscript status. Your supervisor may advise whether to wait, contact the journal, or prepare an alternative plan.

Third, if the status remains unchanged for more than four weeks, send a polite inquiry to the editorial office. Mention your manuscript ID and ask whether any additional information is required. Do not pressure the editor with your institutional deadline unless necessary. If you must mention it, do so respectfully.

Finally, prepare backup academic outputs. You may revise another paper, prepare a conference submission, or strengthen a thesis chapter. ContentXprtz can support scholars with student academic writing support when deadlines are tight and quality matters.

Is professional publication support ethical?

Professional publication support is ethical when it improves clarity, structure, formatting, proofreading, and communication while preserving the author’s intellectual ownership. Ethical support does not fabricate data, write false results, manipulate citations, create ghostwritten deception, or guarantee journal acceptance.

Researchers often seek help because academic publishing is complex. Journals require strong writing, accurate referencing, clear methodology, ethical declarations, and consistent formatting. Professional editors help authors meet these standards. This support is similar to language editing, statistical consultation, formatting assistance, or supervisor feedback.

Ethical publication support should be transparent, responsible, and aligned with academic integrity. Authors should review all edits, approve final wording, and ensure that the manuscript accurately reflects their research.

ContentXprtz follows an ethical academic assistance model. We help researchers refine their manuscripts, improve readability, respond to reviewers, and prepare journal-ready documents. We do not replace the scholar’s original contribution. We help express it with clarity and confidence.

How can I reduce anxiety while waiting for the editor’s decision?

Waiting for a journal decision can be stressful, especially after a positive revision. To reduce anxiety, remind yourself that “with editor” is a process status, not a negative judgment. Two weeks after revision is usually normal. Editors need time to assess revisions, consult reviewers, and complete administrative checks.

Next, focus on productive tasks. Update your literature review. Prepare your next manuscript. Improve your thesis chapter. Organize data files. Draft conference abstracts. These actions help you regain control.

You can also create a communication calendar. For example, decide that you will check the submission system twice a week, not every hour. Decide that you will send a polite inquiry only after four weeks. This prevents unnecessary stress.

Finally, seek support. Talk to your supervisor, co-authors, or professional academic editors. ContentXprtz works with scholars who feel overwhelmed by revision pressure, journal uncertainty, and publication timelines. With the right guidance, you can move from anxiety to strategy.

Practical Checklist for Authors Waiting After Revision

Before worrying about the “with editor” status, use this checklist:

• Have I uploaded the correct revised manuscript?
• Did I include a tracked-changes version if required?
• Did I submit a clear response-to-reviewers letter?
• Did I address every reviewer comment?
• Did I update references and citations correctly?
• Did I check journal formatting requirements?
• Did I include ethical and funding statements?
• Did I verify figure and table quality?
• Did I receive submission confirmation?
• Have I waited at least three to four weeks before emailing?

If the answer is yes, then your best next step is patience.

Final Expert Advice for PhD Scholars

When the paper received highly excellent feedback, including the phrases “high quality,” “well-written,” and “fit for publication in the journal,” but your worry is why your paper has been “with editor” for two weeks after the initial revision was sent, the most balanced interpretation is this: your paper is still under editorial processing, and two weeks is usually not alarming.

Positive feedback is a strong sign. However, the editor must still complete formal evaluation. The revised paper may be checked internally, returned to reviewers, or prepared for a final decision. Therefore, do not panic, do not send repeated emails, and do not assume rejection.

Instead, remain professional. Keep your files organized. Prepare a polite inquiry only if the delay continues. Use the waiting time to strengthen your next academic output. If you need support with revision quality, response letters, thesis writing, or manuscript refinement, seek ethical academic guidance.

ContentXprtz has supported researchers across more than 110 countries since 2010. Our expert editors, subject specialists, and research consultants help scholars prepare publication-ready manuscripts with clarity, academic precision, and confidence. Explore our PhD assistance services to receive structured support for your thesis, dissertation, manuscript revision, or journal publication journey.

At ContentXprtz, we don’t just edit – we help your ideas reach their fullest potential.