F***, submitted in March 24, accepted in October 26, went through 6-7 rounds of revisions. Each round of revisions and re-review ranged from 2-6 months on average, with five or six different reviewers. Damn, frustrated, even though it was accepted, still want to curse~ I wanted to withdraw and resubmit multiple times in the middle...

(0) 讚！ | 大爷的111

The second-round reviewers chose to accept without providing review comments. The journal said it doesn't count and requires inviting reviewers again. What result are you looking for? You want to keep inviting reviewers until they provide rejection comments, right?

(0) 讚！ | CHYY01

Three reviewers, two of whom accepted without any comments, the first one provided feedback, and I am satisfied with the revisions and do not want to write anymore.

(0) 讚！ | CHYY01

Submission, rejection, understandable. If rejected within a week, efficient. If rejected within a month, a couple complaints are fine, after all, there are many submissions to process.

No rejection, sent for review, one month, one year, all fine. After all, there are few reviewers and their work is voluntary. Time is not guaranteed, so a year is reasonable. Then, if rejected, no problem, maybe your writing isn't good enough, maybe others didn't like it.

After sending for review, receive feedback, make revisions, if not satisfied, continue revising. Give feedback again, no problem. If you're not satisfied, just reject it, say my revisions were not good, no problem, at most a couple complaints.

Reply to the revision feedback seriously and in detail as required. If the original reviewer has no further comments and has clicked accept, but the editor leaves the evaluation column blank, you think the reviewer's feedback is invalid and you need to start the review process again, re-inviting reviewers.

What were the previous three reviewers and the revisions for? If you want to reject it, just reject it. What result are you looking for by finding new reviewers?

If the previous reviewers have disappeared, then invite new ones.
If the previous reviewers have given different opinions, then invite new ones.
It's understandable, but if you invite new reviewers just because they agreed to accept without writing any comments, what are you thinking?

(0) 讚！ | CHYY01

In fact, they are all excuses and pretexts. If you want to do it quickly, all five steps can be completed in less than a day. If you are not interested, it is also normal to take one or two months.

(0) 讚！ | CHYY01

Editor Assigned includes five internal processes as described in the email from the editor-in-chief: assistant editor review, executive editor format check, editor-in-chief evaluation, section editor review, and managing editor assessment. This stage may take a considerable amount of time. 
Note: The above is my personal experience in this journal and is for reference only.

(0) 讚！ | CHYY01

The following is a firsthand observation and summary as a reviewer for this journal (visible in the review interface) and a two-round submitter to this journal, applicable only to Current Psychology.

Reviewers Assigned = Review invitations have been sent out, but not enough reviewers have accepted the invitations. Even if one reviewer has accepted, or even submitted their comments, the status remains at Reviewers Assigned and will not change due to one set of comments.

Under Review = At least two reviewers have accepted the invitations, and the review process is underway.

Under Review status remains unchanged but the date changes, typically indicating one of two situations: either a new reviewer has accepted the invitation, or a reviewer has submitted comments - each date change represents an action in the system.

Reviews Completed = Two sets of comments have been received (the minimum required by the journal system), but not all invited reviewers have submitted their comments. If more than two reviewers have accepted the invitation, this status will continue until all comments are received; date changes during this time indicate additional comments being received. (In the journal's system, after the first review, the third reviewer's comments were actually delayed by a month and a half, due to this mechanism.)

(0) 讚！ | CHYY01

For six months out of the year, almost in vain for the time spent on this journal, this rule is a complete waste of time for authors without a fast track. Even if you receive feedback on the review, even if it's good, as soon as revisions are involved, there is a high probability of inviting new reviewers. On one hand, if you make timely revisions, they delay feedback to the reviewers. If the delay is too long, the probability of reviewers accepting the invitation again will decrease. On the other hand, even if you follow up with emails (as we did), the editor will send the revised manuscript to the reviewers. Even if the reviewers have no comments and only click "accept" without entering any text, it does not count (we experienced this firsthand). New reviewers will need to be invited.

On one hand, the quality of the paper is acceptable, but on the other hand, luck plays a big role. This kind of luck is more needed compared to other journals.

I have also been a reviewer for this journal, and I always try to return reviews within one week, but I will not continue in the future.

(0) 讚！ | CHYY01

August 27, 2026: The revised manuscript stayed with the Editor Assigned for a week, and an email was sent inquiring about the status. The chief editor replied the same day, explaining the internal process (Editor Assigned actually includes five levels of review: editorial assistant review, executive editor screening, chief editor evaluation, section editor screening, and responsible editor assessment).

August 28, 2026: The manuscript was submitted for review, and it was indicated that reviewers should provide feedback within 20 days.

September 3, 2026: The system displayed Reviews Completed.

September 19, 2026: The status changed to Reviewers Assigned; the chief editor sent an email the next day stating that the two original reviewers had only selected a recommended conclusion and did not provide any written feedback, making it "difficult to handle." Therefore, new reviewers were invited. According to the default system settings, the new reviewers can only see the anonymous text before submitting their feedback, without access to the opinions of the previous three reviewers or our 20-page detailed responses—resulting in a situation where there are no unresolved criticisms in the revised manuscript, effectively starting the review process anew.

(0) 讚！ | CHYY01

Timeline for Submission
May 2025: First submission (CUPS-D-25-10205).
Spring 2026: Received rejection decision. The core reason for rejection was a reviewer misreading the value of 0.048 as 0.48 (a tenfold difference), leading to the denial of the main conclusion. We submitted a written explanation to the editor-in-chief regarding the misreading, which was accepted, and we were invited to resubmit. This one misreading delayed the process by approximately six months.
May 2026: Resubmitted as per the invitation from the editor-in-chief (CUPS-D-26-05754).
July 3, 2026: System displays Reviews Completed, but the editor-in-chief informed us via email that they were still waiting for the opinion of a third reviewer (the system shows completion once the minimum number of reviews are gathered, as explained in the experience section below). No communication was received for the next one and a half months, despite inquiries.
August 15, 2026: Inquired again; received a decision for major revisions on August 18, with feedback from all three reviewers.
August 20, 2026: Submitted revised manuscript (CUPS-D-26-05754R1) along with over 20 pages of detailed responses, addressing each comment from the three reviewers (including additional analysis, supplementary materials, and new tables).

(0) 讚！ | CHYY01

After 16 months of review, the reviewers misread the data which led to rejection. Despite no comments on the revision, it has initiated a new round of review.

(0) 讚！ | CHYY01

So long? I definitely have to ask, if there is no progress after waiting for 2 months, I have to follow up.

(0) 讚！ | L高飞

This journal is really slow. I submitted in October last year, and it's still at Reviewers Assigned. Have they sent any reminders for submission yet?

(0) 讚！ | 霉果噶日呆

I don't know if "Reviews Assigneds" is currently looking for/inviting reviewers or if they have already been assigned, but the date keeps changing in the middle, and then it remains in this status before finally going into "Under review". I submitted my revised paper on November 26, then there was a Christmas break, the date changed to December 29, and it is still in "Under review" status. Now it's January 29, and it's still in this status, so all I can do is wait. Hopefully, it will be accepted smoothly!

(0) 讚！ | 望投稿顺利！

My assigned review dates have changed two or three times, but it still hasn't shown as "Under review." Does that mean it hasn't been sent for review yet? Or does it mean that the status won't show as "Under review" during this period?

(0) 讚！ | 潜行者继续保持

Hello, will this journal become "reviewers assigned" after inviting one reviewer, or only after all reviewers have been gathered?

(0) 讚！ | 霉果噶日呆

Is there any news now?

(0) 讚！ | Reject100次

Please note that the status will be "Under Review" around 8.4.

(0) 讚！ | 望投稿顺利！

On May 9th, I submitted the manuscript, and it is still in the "Editor Assigned" status. I have urged for it, but they said this is the speed they work at. It's hard to put into words.

(0) 讚！ | 豆小豆

A traditional journal that is moderate in nature, positioning itself as focused on reporting rather than pursuing groundbreaking research. It has a large volume of submissions, so the requirements for manuscripts are more standardized. The review process is also moderate, not dragging on but not as fast as some open access journals. We submitted in late January and received initial approval in early February, then entered the review process. We received the first round of comments at the end of March, with revisions due in mid-April. The second round of comments came at the end of May, with an additional reviewer added, and revisions due in early June. It was accepted at the end of June and published online in mid-July.

(0) 讚！ | 田品

The editor assigned has been almost a month now, and it's really unreliable.

(0) 讚！ | rechardzhou

Hey friend, what's your progress now? For me, after submitting, it took a week to go from "editor assigned" status to "reviewers assigned" status, and it has been two weeks now with no updates.

(0) 讚！ | 望投稿顺利！

Submitted on 7.6, discovered a small issue on 7.10 and resubmitted after making changes. Currently still in the Editor Assigned stage. A classmate had a solo submission accepted by this journal, but after three rounds of revisions, my senior's submission was rejected. Based on the experiences of others, it seems that this journal requires at least three revisions and has a long review process.

(0) 讚！ | chenjh368

It has been a month and a half since submission, and the manuscript is currently in "Editor Assigned" status. Has there been any update on the status of your manuscript?

(0) 讚！ | apple-@