how should one interpret these conflicting signals? Waiting for acceptance or rejection of a paper can be stressful, especially with such ambiguous indicators.
I think, yes, it can be - they may have skipped or forgotten to change the labels. I once had some similar experience. So after many months of waiting I wrote an email to the journal's editor-in-chief.
Hello Saloni Sharma
I agree with Dr Andrii Kozachuk that yes it is possible and my approach to what to do next is very different. I would rather take my manuscript to another journal with still the goal to get it accepted and published.
It is an absolute DISGRACE for the world scientific community to let publishers (often full of incompetent individuals - editors, reviewers) enjoy the right to to FORCE us to submit a paper to ONLY ONE publisher at a time. It must be exactly the opposite: a scientist must have the right to submit a paper to as many publishers as s/he wishes! And the publishers MUST FIGHT for a paper/book to publish it - when it is a good one. This is so simple and so obvious and so straightforward that I am shocked why this DISGRACE continues. Suppose I make bread, or wine, or computers, or whatever. What? Shall I be obliged to propose them to one buyer only at a time? Hey, scientific community, start THINKING at last, will you?
I agree with each comment, presented above. It would be reasonable and fair to submit to several journal at once; the irony is that we are not in a free market: the publishing market, as all other markets, be it economy field or politics, is a monopolized market. And here we are. I also disagree with the publishers' rules about the format and length of articles. Their policies kill any possibility for expressing authors' personal styles and creativity. Any ideas of how all these could be changed back to the old classical traditions?
it is possible to be rejected, especially if the journal where you have submitted your paper is a peer reviewed one and have external editors as well. But too fair with you, you should also be informed officially about the status of your paper by the editor-in chief of the journal. In the first place, you should explore different credible journals. It is not acceptable to publish your paper in many journals for ethical considerations.
As much as I agree that peer-reviewing can be hard to swallow, I must confess it has always helped me improve my research. Then again I'm pretty sure it could all be done more efficiently and more respectfully. Waiting for months for a generic "thank you, but no thank you" rejection letter is unacceptable. I know of at least one person who waited for months and ended up receiving an AI-generated review. We deserve better than that!
For the author of a work, multi-level verification is only a possible benefit. Like any work, it's stressful, but it's better to check everything more than once than to submit an incorrect piece to the press.
Yes, I agree with Zinaida Budinski & Eloy Romero Munoz sir that multi levels verification is beneficial for author to improve his/her research. If we get rejection letter, in that they should mention proper reason for rejection and also give chance to correct mistake if possible.