Why Did My Manuscript Status Change from “Reviews Completed” to “Editor Assigned”?

Seeing a manuscript move from “Reviews completed” back to “Editor assigned” can feel like a step backward. In most cases, it is better understood as a change in who is handling the manuscript or what task is currently being recorded—not as a decision about the paper.

The labels are administrative status indicators. They do not reliably tell you what the editor thinks of the manuscript or what the eventual outcome will be.

What the two statuses usually indicate

“Reviews completed” commonly means that the system has recorded enough reviewer reports for the editorial process to move forward. It does not necessarily mean that every person invited to review submitted a report; journals can proceed once they have the reports they need.

“Editor assigned” commonly means that an editor has been assigned responsibility for the next stage. After peer review, that editor may be assessing the reports, consulting another editor, or preparing a recommendation or decision. In some workflows, the label can also reflect an editor being newly assigned or reassigned.

The sequence may therefore look like this:

1. The required reviewer reports are received and recorded.
2. The manuscript is routed to an editor for assessment.
3. The editor considers the reports and the manuscript.
4. The journal communicates a decision, requests additional review, or takes another workflow step.

This is a common interpretation, not a guaranteed description of every journal’s system. Status names and the way they change vary across publishers, journals, and submission platforms.

Why can the status appear to go backward?

The status shown to authors is often a simplified view of a more detailed editorial workflow. It may display the current task or assigned role rather than a permanent record of every stage. A status can change when the manuscript is handed back to an editor, transferred between editors, or routed for an additional check. A journal may also update a status manually or use a platform label that does not match the wording used by another journal.

For example, suppose your system first shows “Reviews completed.” The reports are then available to the handling editor, and the system changes to “Editor assigned.” That change can simply mean the editor is now responsible for assessing those reports. It does not establish whether the editor is leaning toward acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Other possibilities include an editorial reassignment, a need for another opinion, or an administrative update. The status alone cannot distinguish among these possibilities. It also does not prove that the journal has invited a new reviewer or that the review process has restarted.

What should you do?

First, check the manuscript record and your email—including spam or junk folders—for a decision letter or a request for action. A status label is not usually a substitute for the journal’s formal decision notification. If there is no decision or request, you generally do not need to do anything immediately.

If the status remains unchanged for a substantial period, or if you need to plan around a deadline, you can write to the editorial office. Use the contact details in the submission system or on the journal’s website. Include the manuscript ID, title, and submission date, and ask whether any action is required from you. Keep the message brief and neutral; avoid treating the status change as evidence of a favorable or unfavorable outcome.

There is no single waiting period that applies to every journal. Review and decision times vary by discipline, journal workload, the availability of editors, and whether another review is needed. If the journal publishes an expected decision timeline, use that as your guide. Otherwise, a polite inquiry is reasonable after a meaningful period without an update, rather than immediately after a routine status change.

Common mistakes

• Reading a status as a verdict. “Editor assigned” is not the same as “accepted,” “rejected,” or “major revision.” Wait for the formal decision.
• Assuming every reviewer has finished. “Reviews completed” may mean the editor has the reports needed to proceed, not that every invited reviewer responded.
• Assuming review has restarted. An editor-related label alone does not show that new reviewers were invited.
• Comparing labels across journals. Publishers and individual journals configure their workflows differently, so a status that has one meaning in one system may be used differently in another.
• Sending repeated urgent messages. Unless you have an approaching deadline or another concrete reason, one concise inquiry after a reasonable wait is more useful than frequent follow-ups.

The safest reading is that the manuscript is in editorial handling after a review stage. The change does not tell you the decision; the journal’s editor or editorial office can clarify the status if it remains unclear.