Expert Systems with Applications 'Under Review': What the Status Means

The first status period is not the full scientific review. It is the journal checking whether the record can be handled: files open correctly, the article type is plausible, author metadata is complete, disclosures are included, and the manuscript fits the broad journal scope. For Expert Systems with Applications, this stage matters because a small administrative issue can look like a peer-review delay from the author's side. If the status changes quickly to Under Review, read that as a routing signal, not as evidence that every reviewer has already accepted.

At this point the manuscript is being read for fit. The handling editor is deciding whether the manuscript belongs in Expert Systems with Applications, whether the article type is correct, and whether the evidence package is developed enough to justify reviewer time. Editor-in-Chief and Elsevier Editorial Manager handling creates a particular kind of editorial culture: the editor is not only asking whether the work is technically presentable, but whether the abstract, benchmark table, and methods make the journal fit visible before a reviewer has to reconstruct it.

This stage can happen in parallel with technical checks, suggested-reviewer screening, conflict checks, and reviewer search. That is why a static status is not automatically a bad sign. It often means the journal is still building the right review path.

In parallel, the editor may be identifying two to three reviewers and checking whether the manuscript has the right scope for those reviewers. Recruiting reviewers can take 7 to 21 days when the topic sits between fields, depends on a specialized dataset, or needs both methodological and domain expertise. A Expert Systems with Applications manuscript can therefore show Under Review while the editor is still securing the right mix of reviewers.

For authors, the useful question is not "has someone accepted yet?" The useful question is "if a reviewer accepts today, would the manuscript's benchmark table, methods, application case, and baseline set make the claim easy to evaluate?"

This is the main period in which reviewers evaluate the paper. They are usually checking whether the conclusion follows from the methods, whether the strongest comparison or control is present, whether the figures match the claims, and whether limitations are honest. In Expert Systems with Applications, the common weak point is an AI application paper whose benchmark looks strong but whose decision setting, baselines, or deployment consequence is not clear enough for ESWA. That weakness can produce long reviews because the reviewer is not only judging quality; they are trying to decide whether the paper is fixable within the journal's frame.

After reports arrive, the handling editor has to turn them into a decision. This can still look like Under Review, Reviews Complete, Required Reviews Complete, or Decision in Process depending on the portal. Do not assume silence during this period means rejection. It can mean the editor is reconciling mixed reports, checking whether one reviewer misunderstood the scope, or deciding whether the manuscript needs another opinion.

Not automatically. The most common explanation is reviewer recruitment or a delayed report, not a hidden rejection. The more useful interpretation is whether the elapsed time matches the stage. If the paper moved to Under Review quickly and then stayed there, the editor may still be waiting on one reviewer. If the status changed after several weeks, the editor may be synthesizing reports. If there has been no movement past 12 weeks, a polite inquiry is reasonable.

What you should not do is rewrite the manuscript in panic or submit elsewhere. Prepare the response materials that will matter if the decision is revise, reject with comments, or transfer.

Expert Systems with Applications can move quickly at desk screen and still slow down during Under Review because the reviewer pool is interdisciplinary. A methodologist may be comfortable with the model but not the application setting; a domain reviewer may understand the application but ask for stronger baselines, external validation, or clearer decision consequences. That is why the most useful waiting-period work is not generic patience. It is building an ESWA-specific response map that connects the abstract, benchmark table, methods, application case, and limits to the exact claim the journal is being asked to publish.

In our pre-submission review work with Expert Systems with Applications manuscripts, the pages that created the most avoidable status anxiety were not the obviously weak papers. In the 100 manuscripts Manusights reviewed most recently in the journal's neighborhood, they were credible papers where authors waited passively during Under Review instead of preparing for the exact review objections most likely to arrive. The specific failure pattern is practical: official guidance explains the workflow, but it rarely connects the status label to the manuscript components reviewers will test.

ESWA fit visible in the wrong place. The first recurring pattern is a manuscript whose fit is explained in the cover letter but not in the abstract, benchmark table, or introduction. For Expert Systems with Applications, that creates a review problem because the editor may understand the fit while a reviewer sees only a competent paper with an underdeveloped journal case. During Under Review, prepare a revision paragraph that makes the fit visible inside the paper itself.

ESWA evidence package uneven across sections. The second pattern is uneven support. One part of the paper is strong, but the methods, application case, or baseline set does not fully support the claim reviewers are likely to test. This is where authors lose time after the decision letter. Build a claim-to-evidence map while the paper is still Under Review so you can respond quickly if the reviewer asks for detail.

ESWA reviewer expectation mismatch. The third pattern is a paper that chose the right broad journal but prepared for the wrong reviewer. A Expert Systems with Applications reviewer may care less about the author's favorite technical detail and more about whether the benchmark table, methods, and statistical analysis make the conclusion independently checkable. The fix is not defensive writing. The fix is a response plan that names what evidence already exists and what evidence would genuinely require new work.

ESWA reporting frame missing where the design requires it. The fourth pattern is a manuscript that uses human, animal, clinical, observational, systematic, or computational evidence without making the reporting frame explicit enough. PRISMA applies to systematic reviews and meta-analyses; STROBE, CONSORT, or TRIPOD-like reporting may matter for health AI or decision-support studies with clinical data. When that frame is missing, reviewers may treat the result as less reproducible than it actually is.

Source limitation: Elsevier, ScienceDirect, and Editorial Manager are the authorities for active ESWA status and journal metadata. Manusights adds manuscript-risk interpretation from pre-submission review work, not private access to a specific active editorial file.

Decision in process usually means the editor has enough information to write or release a decision. It is not useful to email at that exact moment unless the journal requests action. Use the time to prepare three response paths: a clean revision response, a rejection-with-transfer plan, and a redirect plan if the decision says the manuscript is outside Expert Systems with Applications's fit.

Treat the revision as a reviewer-risk document, not just a marked manuscript. Build the response around reviewer comments, action taken, manuscript location, and evidence. If a reviewer misunderstood the work, answer with a clearer figure, paragraph, or table rather than only saying they misunderstood.

Do not waste the reviewer reports. Separate concerns into three groups: fatal journal-fit concerns, fixable presentation concerns, and evidence gaps that require new work. A rejection after Under Review can still be useful if it tells you whether the manuscript should be rebuilt for Expert Systems with Applications, transferred inside the publisher ecosystem, or moved to a better-matched venue.

Do not submit elsewhere. Do not send repeated status emails. Do not add new analyses to the submitted file unless the editor requests them. Do not assume that a quiet Under Review status means a negative decision. The productive action is to audit the abstract, benchmark table, methods, application case, references, reporting frame, and likely reviewer objections.