My journal paper status is changed directly from “with editor” to “desicion in process” without going to under review. What does it mean? Will it go for review or will it be rejected?

When a PhD scholar asks, “My journal paper status is changed directly from “with editor” to “desicion in process” without going to under review. What does it mean? Will it go for review or will it be rejected?”, the concern is completely understandable. After months or years of designing a study, collecting data, writing the manuscript, formatting references, and waiting for a journal update, a sudden status change can feel stressful. The phrase “decision in process” often sounds final, especially when the manuscript never showed “under review.” However, it does not always mean rejection. It means the editor or editorial office is preparing, recording, or approving a decision in the journal’s submission system.

For many students, PhD scholars, and early-career researchers, manuscript tracking systems create more anxiety than clarity. Every status update appears important, yet each publisher uses different workflows. Elsevier explains that manuscript statuses in Editorial Manager reflect where the submission stands in the editorial process, but the exact meaning may depend on the journal and system configuration. Springer Nature also notes that authors can track the progress of an article online, but the article passes through different stages before a decision is made. (Elsevier Support)

This uncertainty becomes more intense because academic publishing is highly competitive. Many reputable journals reject a large number of submissions at the editorial screening stage before peer review. Editors check whether the paper fits the journal scope, meets quality expectations, follows ethical standards, and contributes enough novelty. Emerald Publishing explains that an editor may reject a submission if it does not meet the journal’s editorial objectives, or the editor may select reviewers if the paper should move forward. (Emerald Publishing)

Therefore, a direct move from “with editor” to “decision in process” usually means the manuscript is under editorial decision-making. It may result in a desk rejection, a request for changes before review, transfer advice, reviewer invitation after internal approval, or, rarely, another editorial action. The most common possibility is that the editor has completed the initial assessment and is now preparing a decision. Yet authors should wait for the formal decision letter before assuming the outcome.

This guide from ContentXprtz explains what this status means, why it happens, how long authors should wait, and what practical steps PhD scholars can take. It also offers ethical academic editing and publication guidance for researchers who want to improve their chances during submission, revision, and resubmission. This article is prepared in line with the user’s ContentXprtz SEO and academic content brief.

What does “with editor” mean in a journal submission system?

The status “with editor” usually means your manuscript has passed the basic administrative check and has reached an editor. At this stage, the editor may be the editor-in-chief, associate editor, handling editor, or section editor. The editor reviews your manuscript before deciding whether to send it for peer review.

During this stage, the editor often checks:

• Whether the topic fits the journal aims and scope
• Whether the paper adds a meaningful contribution
• Whether the methodology appears sound
• Whether the writing quality is acceptable
• Whether the references are relevant and recent
• Whether the article type matches journal requirements
• Whether ethical approvals, conflicts of interest, and declarations are complete
• Whether the manuscript follows formatting and submission guidelines

Springer Nature describes the early editorial process as including quality checks related to authorship, competing interests, ethics approval, and plagiarism before the manuscript moves further. (Springer Nature Support)

Therefore, “with editor” is not a passive stage. It is often the point where the editor decides whether your paper deserves external peer review. For PhD scholars, this is a crucial moment because a manuscript can leave the process before reviewers are invited.

What does “decision in process” mean?

“Decision in process” means the journal is preparing or finalizing an editorial decision. The editor may have already decided the next step, or the decision may need approval from the editor-in-chief or editorial office.

This stage may happen after peer review. However, it can also happen before peer review. That is why the question “My journal paper status is changed directly from “with editor” to “desicion in process” without going to under review. What does it mean? Will it go for review or will it be rejected?” is so common among authors.

If your paper never showed “under review,” the journal may be making an initial editorial decision. In many cases, this means one of the following:

• The editor may issue a desk rejection.
• The editor may request technical corrections.
• The editor may ask for presubmission improvements.
• The editor may recommend transfer to another journal.
• The editor may decide to invite reviewers after internal checks.
• The system may not display every internal step to authors.

Emerald’s peer review guidance shows that editors first decide whether a submission meets the journal’s editorial objectives. If it does, they may select reviewers. If it does not, they may reject it before review. (Emerald Publishing)

So, the status is not a guaranteed rejection. Yet it does indicate that a formal decision may arrive soon.

Is it a desk rejection if the paper did not go under review?

A direct change from “with editor” to “decision in process” often indicates possible desk rejection, but authors should not treat it as confirmed rejection until the decision email arrives.

A desk rejection means the editor rejects the manuscript without sending it to external reviewers. This can happen quickly, especially when the manuscript does not align with the journal’s scope, lacks novelty, has weak methodology, or needs substantial language editing.

However, some journals show limited status labels. For example, the system may not display “reviewer invited,” “reviewer assigned,” or “under review” to authors. In that case, the manuscript might have undergone some internal assessment that authors cannot see.

In short, the answer to “My journal paper status is changed directly from “with editor” to “desicion in process” without going to under review. What does it mean? Will it go for review or will it be rejected?” is this: it likely means an editorial decision is being prepared. It may be rejection, but it is not final until you receive the official decision letter.

Why journals reject papers before peer review

Editors desk reject papers for several reasons. These reasons often relate less to the author’s effort and more to journal fit, publication strategy, and editorial priorities.

Poor fit with journal aims and scope

A strong manuscript can still receive rejection if it does not match the journal’s audience. For example, a paper on consumer behavior may not fit a journal focused on operations management, even if the analysis is rigorous.

Before submission, authors should compare their manuscript with recently published articles in the target journal. Look at theoretical focus, methodology, geography, contribution style, and article structure.

Weak novelty or unclear contribution

Editors often ask one question first: “What does this paper add?” If the contribution is vague, the paper may not reach reviewers.

Your introduction should clearly explain:

• What problem the study addresses
• What gap exists in the literature
• Why the gap matters now
• How your study advances theory, method, practice, or policy
• Why the chosen journal is the right venue

Methodological concerns

A paper may face desk rejection if the method appears incomplete. This includes unclear sampling, weak measurement, inadequate statistical justification, poor interview protocol, missing validity checks, or unsupported claims.

PhD researchers should treat the methodology section as the credibility engine of the paper. Even a promising topic can fail if the method lacks transparency.

Language and presentation issues

Editors do not expect every author to write like a native English speaker. However, they expect clarity, coherence, and academic precision. If the manuscript contains severe grammar errors, inconsistent terminology, weak paragraph flow, or unclear arguments, the editor may decide that reviewers cannot evaluate it fairly.

Professional academic editing services can help scholars refine structure, tone, coherence, and journal readiness before submission.

Ethical or technical problems

Missing declarations, plagiarism concerns, AI misuse, duplicate submission, incomplete consent statements, and poor referencing can stop a manuscript before review. Springer Nature’s post-submission process highlights quality checks related to authorship, competing interests, ethics approval, and plagiarism. (Springer Nature Support)

Could the paper still go for review after “decision in process”?

Yes, but it is less common if the status moved directly from “with editor” to “decision in process.” In most systems, “decision in process” appears when the editor has moved toward an outcome.

However, three situations may still lead to review:

First, the journal system may not show all review stages. Some platforms keep internal steps hidden. Therefore, the author dashboard may move from “with editor” to “decision in process” even after some internal consultation.

Second, the editor may request minor technical corrections before sending the paper to reviewers. For example, the decision letter may ask you to fix formatting, declarations, anonymization, or missing files.

Third, the editor may transfer the manuscript to another journal in the same publisher portfolio. Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and other publishers often have transfer pathways.

So, while rejection is possible, authors should wait for the formal letter. The decision letter is the only reliable source.

How long does “decision in process” take?

The time varies by journal, publisher, editorial workload, and approval process. Some authors receive a decision within one or two days. Others wait several weeks.

Emerald Publishing’s author support information states that the average time a paper is out for review can vary, and Emerald aims to provide a first decision within 60 days for journal submissions. (Emerald Customer Support)

If your manuscript reached “decision in process” without peer review, the waiting period may be shorter. Still, delays happen because the editor may need approval, administrative checks, or decision letter preparation.

A practical waiting rule is:

• Wait 7 to 10 working days before worrying.
• Wait 2 to 3 weeks before sending a polite inquiry.
• Avoid repeated emails during the first week.
• Check spam and author dashboard regularly.
• Do not submit the same manuscript elsewhere until the final decision arrives.

What should you do while waiting?

Do not panic. Also, do not assume the worst. Use the waiting period productively.

First, download and save your submitted manuscript, cover letter, highlights, title page, and declarations. You may need them for resubmission.

Second, review the journal scope again. If the decision becomes rejection, you can quickly assess whether the mismatch was predictable.

Third, prepare a backup journal list. Choose three journals with realistic fit. Compare aims, article types, indexing, review timelines, open access costs, and formatting rules.

Fourth, audit your manuscript. Ask whether the contribution, literature gap, method, results, discussion, and implications are strong enough for your target journal.

Finally, seek expert feedback if needed. ContentXprtz offers PhD thesis help, manuscript editing, journal selection support, and publication assistance for scholars who want an ethical review before resubmission.

How to interpret the final decision letter

The decision letter matters more than the status label. Once the journal sends the letter, read it carefully.

If the decision is “reject without review,” focus on the editor’s reason. Some letters provide detailed feedback. Others use standard language. Look for keywords such as scope mismatch, limited contribution, methodological weakness, insufficient novelty, language concerns, or editorial priority.

If the decision is “revise before review,” treat it as an opportunity. Improve the manuscript carefully and resubmit within the deadline.

If the decision suggests transfer, evaluate the suggested journal. Do not accept a transfer automatically. Check its indexing, scope, article processing charges, editorial board, publication model, and reputation.

If the decision is “under review” after internal processing, then the paper has moved forward. In that case, prepare for reviewer comments and possible revision.

Example scenarios for PhD scholars

Consider these common scenarios.

A management PhD scholar submits a paper to a Q1 journal. The status changes from “with editor” to “decision in process” after five days. The final decision is desk rejection because the paper lacks international contribution. The scholar revises the introduction, strengthens theory, and resubmits to a better-fit journal.

A biomedical researcher submits a technically sound paper. The status changes to “decision in process” after two days. The journal asks for ethics approval clarification before review. The author uploads the missing document, and the paper moves forward.

A social sciences researcher submits to a journal outside the study’s scope. The editor rejects it without review but recommends another journal in the publisher’s portfolio. The author checks the alternative journal and decides whether transfer makes sense.

These examples show why the answer to “My journal paper status is changed directly from “with editor” to “desicion in process” without going to under review. What does it mean? Will it go for review or will it be rejected?” depends on the journal workflow and final letter.

How to reduce the risk of desk rejection

Desk rejection prevention begins before submission. Authors can improve their chances by aligning the manuscript with journal expectations.

Strengthen the title and abstract

Editors often form an early impression from the title and abstract. Make the title specific, scholarly, and aligned with journal themes. The abstract should state the purpose, method, findings, originality, and implications.

Build a sharper introduction

Your introduction should not simply describe the topic. It should create a research problem. Move from broad context to a clear gap. Then state your contribution.

Match the journal’s conversation

Read at least 10 recent articles from the target journal. Identify the theories, methods, contribution styles, and topics the journal values. Then position your paper within that conversation.

Improve academic language

Clear academic English supports credibility. Use concise sentences, logical transitions, and consistent terminology. Avoid overclaiming.

Researchers who need structured support can explore ContentXprtz’s research paper writing support for academic clarity, formatting, editing, and publication readiness.

Prepare a strong cover letter

A cover letter should not repeat the abstract. It should explain why the paper fits the journal, what contribution it makes, and why readers will care.

Check ethics and declarations

Before submission, verify plagiarism, authorship order, consent, funding, conflict of interest, data availability, and AI-use declarations. Many journals now screen these details carefully.

Why professional academic editing matters

Professional academic editing does not guarantee acceptance. No ethical service can promise that. However, high-quality editing can help authors present their research more clearly and professionally.

Academic editing improves:

• Argument flow
• Grammar and syntax
• Paragraph coherence
• Journal tone
• Research positioning
• Method clarity
• Reference consistency
• Response-to-reviewer documents
• Cover letters
• Resubmission strategy

For book authors and long-form academic writers, ContentXprtz also provides book authors writing services. For institutions and professionals, ContentXprtz offers corporate writing services that support research-based reports, white papers, and professional publications.

Practical checklist before your next journal submission

Before submitting again, use this checklist:

• Does the manuscript fit the journal aims and scope?
• Does the introduction state a clear research gap?
• Does the paper explain its original contribution?
• Are the methods transparent and replicable?
• Are results presented clearly?
• Does the discussion connect findings to literature?
• Are implications specific and useful?
• Are limitations honest but not damaging?
• Are references current and relevant?
• Are ethics statements complete?
• Is the cover letter journal-specific?
• Has the manuscript been proofread by an expert?

This checklist cannot remove all risk. However, it can reduce avoidable rejection.

Frequently asked questions

1. My journal paper status is changed directly from “with editor” to “desicion in process” without going to under review. Does it mean rejection?

Not always. However, it can mean the editor is preparing an initial decision. In many journal systems, “with editor” means the editor is checking whether the manuscript fits the journal. If the paper does not match the aims and scope, lacks novelty, has methodological issues, or requires major writing improvement, the editor may reject it without external peer review. This is called desk rejection.

Still, authors should avoid assuming rejection too early. Some systems do not show every internal stage. A manuscript may undergo internal editorial checks, reviewer identification, or quality control without the dashboard showing “under review.” Sometimes, “decision in process” may lead to a request for technical corrections. It may also lead to a transfer recommendation.

The safest approach is to wait for the official decision email. The dashboard status gives only partial information. The decision letter explains the outcome. If the letter is a rejection, read it carefully. Identify whether the issue was journal fit, originality, methods, writing quality, or ethics documentation. Then revise strategically.

If you receive a desk rejection, do not view it as the end of the paper. Many publishable manuscripts receive desk rejection from one journal and later succeed elsewhere after stronger positioning, better editing, and improved journal selection.

2. How long should I wait after “decision in process” before contacting the journal?

You should usually wait at least 7 to 10 working days before becoming concerned. Many journals finalize decisions quickly, but some require editorial approval or administrative processing. If the status remains unchanged for more than two or three weeks, a polite inquiry is reasonable.

When writing to the journal, keep your message brief and respectful. Mention the manuscript title, submission ID, submission date, and current status. Ask whether any additional information is required from your side. Do not pressure the editor or ask whether the paper is rejected. Editors manage many submissions, and repeated messages may not help.

A professional inquiry might say: “Dear Editorial Office, I hope you are well. I am writing to kindly ask whether there is any update regarding manuscript ID [number], currently showing ‘Decision in Process.’ Please let me know if any further information is required from my side. Thank you for your time and support.”

This tone shows patience and professionalism. It also protects your reputation as an author. While waiting, prepare backup journal options and review your manuscript. However, do not submit it elsewhere until the final decision arrives.

3. Why did my manuscript not show “under review”?

There are several possible reasons. First, the editor may not have sent the paper for external peer review. This happens when the manuscript does not fit the journal, lacks sufficient contribution, or fails initial quality checks. In that case, the paper may move from “with editor” to “decision in process” because the editor is preparing a desk rejection.

Second, the journal platform may not display every workflow step to authors. Some systems show only broad stages. For example, a manuscript may move internally through editor assignment, reviewer search, reviewer invitation, and editorial decision without every label appearing on the author dashboard.

Third, reviewers may have been invited but not assigned. If reviewers decline, the editor may reassess the paper or search again. Some systems show this as “with editor,” while others show a different label.

Fourth, the manuscript may need technical corrections before review. Missing files, unclear declarations, anonymization issues, or formatting problems can stop the process.

Therefore, not seeing “under review” does not prove rejection. However, it often means external review has not formally started. Wait for the decision letter before taking action.

4. Can I email the editor directly to ask whether my paper will be rejected?

You can contact the editorial office, but you should avoid asking directly whether your paper will be rejected. Editors usually cannot discuss decisions informally before the formal decision letter. A direct question may also sound impatient.

Instead, send a neutral status inquiry only after a reasonable waiting period. Address the editorial office unless the journal specifically encourages contacting the handling editor. Use the manuscript ID and title. Ask whether the journal needs anything from you.

A good email should be short, respectful, and factual. Avoid emotional language, long explanations, or complaints about waiting time. Also, do not mention that you plan to submit elsewhere unless you are formally withdrawing the paper.

If you need to withdraw the paper, follow the journal’s withdrawal policy. Never submit the same manuscript to another journal while the first journal is still considering it. Duplicate submission violates publication ethics and can harm your academic reputation.

If you feel uncertain, seek advice from your supervisor, co-authors, or a professional publication support team. ContentXprtz can help authors draft polite journal communication, interpret decision letters, and plan ethical resubmission strategies.

5. What should I do if the decision is desk rejection?

If the decision is desk rejection, take a structured approach. First, read the decision letter without reacting immediately. Then identify the reason. Was the paper outside the journal scope? Did the editor mention limited novelty? Were there concerns about method, language, theory, ethics, or formatting?

Second, revise the manuscript before sending it elsewhere. Many authors make the mistake of submitting the same version to another journal immediately. That approach often leads to another rejection. Instead, improve the introduction, clarify the contribution, strengthen the literature review, refine the method, and polish the language.

Third, choose the next journal carefully. Compare your manuscript with recently published papers in the target journal. Check aims and scope, indexing, acceptance timelines, open access fees, and article types.

Fourth, rewrite the cover letter. Each journal needs a tailored cover letter. Explain why the manuscript fits that journal’s readership.

Finally, treat desk rejection as feedback about positioning. It does not always mean poor research. Sometimes it means poor fit. With the right revision and journal selection, many rejected manuscripts later get published.

6. Should I revise the paper before receiving the final decision?

You should not make a formal resubmission or submit elsewhere before receiving the final decision. However, you can review your manuscript privately and prepare possible improvements.

For example, you can strengthen your abstract, check the journal scope, review recent literature, improve transitions, fix grammar, and prepare a backup journal list. These actions do not interfere with the current submission.

Avoid making assumptions that lead to rushed decisions. If the journal later asks for minor corrections or additional files, you may need to respond quickly. If the journal rejects the paper, you will already have a revision plan.

PhD scholars should also involve co-authors before making major changes. Discuss possible weaknesses and decide whether the manuscript needs language editing, methodological clarification, theoretical repositioning, or a new journal strategy.

Professional academic editing can help at this stage. An editor can review the manuscript for clarity, structure, grammar, journal tone, and logical flow. However, ethical editing should never create data, invent results, or change the meaning of the research. It should help your work become clearer, stronger, and more publication-ready.

7. Does “decision in process” after peer review mean the same thing?

No. “Decision in process” after peer review usually means reviewers have submitted reports and the editor is preparing a decision. In that situation, possible outcomes include accept, minor revision, major revision, reject and resubmit, or reject.

When the status appears before “under review,” it often points to an editorial screening decision. When it appears after “under review,” it usually reflects post-review decision-making.

This distinction matters because the meaning depends on sequence. A direct path from “with editor” to “decision in process” suggests the editor may be deciding whether the paper should enter peer review. A path from “under review” to “decision in process” suggests reviewers have likely contributed feedback.

However, journal systems vary. Taylor & Francis notes that authors can view article status in the submission system used for the journal, which shows that the platform itself shapes what authors see. (Author Services)

Therefore, always interpret status labels with caution. Look at the timeline, publisher workflow, and final decision letter. If the letter includes reviewer comments, the paper entered review. If it includes only editor comments, it likely did not.

8. How can ContentXprtz help after a journal rejection?

ContentXprtz can help authors respond strategically after rejection. The first step is diagnosis. A rejection letter may look discouraging, but it often contains useful signals. Our academic editors can help identify whether the issue relates to journal fit, contribution clarity, literature framing, methodology, writing quality, or formatting.

Next, we help refine the manuscript. This may include improving the title, abstract, introduction, theoretical framing, discussion, implications, limitations, and conclusion. We also support language editing, grammar correction, coherence improvement, and formatting according to journal guidelines.

For revised submissions, we can help authors prepare a stronger cover letter and journal selection plan. For papers rejected after peer review, we can also help organize reviewer comments and create a response strategy for another journal.

ContentXprtz supports ethical academic improvement. We do not promise guaranteed acceptance because journal decisions remain independent. Instead, we help scholars present their research with clarity, credibility, and professional polish.

Since 2010, ContentXprtz has worked with researchers, students, PhD scholars, and professionals across more than 110 countries. Our goal is to help ideas reach publication readiness without compromising academic integrity.

9. What are the most common mistakes PhD scholars make during journal submission?

Many PhD scholars submit strong research too early. They may choose a journal based on ranking alone, not fit. They may also submit before the manuscript clearly explains its contribution. These mistakes increase the risk of desk rejection.

Another common mistake is writing a weak cover letter. A generic cover letter does not help the editor understand why the manuscript belongs in that journal. Authors should clearly state the paper’s originality, fit, and relevance to the journal’s readers.

Some scholars also overlook formatting and ethical requirements. Missing declarations, inconsistent references, poor anonymization, or unclear funding statements can delay or block review.

Language quality is another issue. A manuscript with strong findings may still struggle if the argument is hard to follow. Editors and reviewers need clarity. They should not have to guess what the author means.

Finally, many authors rush resubmission after rejection. They change the journal name and submit the same manuscript elsewhere. A better approach is to revise deeply, improve positioning, and select the next journal carefully.

The strongest publication strategy combines research quality, journal fit, ethical compliance, academic editing, and patience.

10. Will professional editing improve my chance of peer review?

Professional editing can improve the clarity and presentation of your manuscript, which may increase its chance of passing editorial screening. However, editing alone cannot guarantee peer review or acceptance. Editors consider many factors, including scope fit, novelty, methodology, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s audience.

A skilled academic editor helps ensure that your research is not rejected because of avoidable writing problems. Editing can improve sentence clarity, paragraph structure, argument flow, terminology consistency, grammar, punctuation, and formatting. It can also help your manuscript sound more precise and professional.

For non-native English-speaking researchers, editing can be especially valuable. It allows the editor to focus on the science, theory, or argument rather than language errors. Still, the research itself must be strong.

Ethical editing respects author ownership. It does not fabricate data, manipulate findings, or create false claims. Instead, it helps authors communicate their original work clearly.

Before submission, consider professional editing if your manuscript has complex arguments, reviewer history, language concerns, or Q1 journal targets. ContentXprtz provides publication-focused editing and PhD academic support for scholars who want a stronger, cleaner, and more credible submission package.

Final guidance for authors

The status “decision in process” can feel alarming, especially when your paper never showed “under review.” Yet the most accurate answer to “My journal paper status is changed directly from “with editor” to “desicion in process” without going to under review. What does it mean? Will it go for review or will it be rejected?” is balanced: the editor is preparing a decision, and desk rejection is possible, but not certain.

Do not withdraw the paper, resubmit elsewhere, or panic before receiving the official letter. Wait for the decision. Then respond with a clear plan. If the paper is rejected, improve it before choosing another journal. If the journal asks for changes, respond carefully and professionally. If it moves forward, prepare for reviewer comments.

For PhD scholars, publication is not only about writing a good paper. It is also about timing, fit, clarity, ethics, journal selection, and resilience. Each decision teaches something about the manuscript and the publishing system.

ContentXprtz supports students, PhD scholars, researchers, universities, and professionals with ethical editing, proofreading, research paper refinement, dissertation support, and publication assistance. Since 2010, we have helped researchers in more than 110 countries improve the clarity, credibility, and publication readiness of their academic work.

Explore our Writing & Publishing Services or PhD & Academic Services to strengthen your next submission with expert academic support.

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