SCI submission research square shows Review #2 received. What does it mean?

When a submission to a journal using the Scholarly One (SCI) submission system shows "Review #2 received" on a platform like Research Square, it signifies a specific and positive stage in the peer review process. This status indicates that the second of (typically) two or more required peer reviews for your manuscript has been formally submitted by the assigned reviewer to the journal's editorial office. The system is updating you that this component of the assessment phase is now complete. It does not, however, convey the content or recommendation of that review; it is purely an administrative notification confirming the receipt of the document from the reviewer. This status is a concrete milestone, moving the manuscript from a state of awaiting reviews to one where the editorial team has all the necessary evaluations in hand to proceed.

The mechanism leading to this point involves the editor, after an initial quality check, having invited at least two independent experts to evaluate your work. The "Review #2 received" status appears once that final invited reviewer submits their confidential assessment through the journal's online system. This triggers an update in the manuscript's tracking log. It is important to understand the workflow this enables: the managing editor or associate editor in charge of your manuscript now has a complete set of reviews. Their next task is to synthesize these reports, along with their own reading of the paper, to form an editorial decision. The status therefore marks the end of the external data-collection phase and the beginning of the internal editorial deliberation phase.

The primary implication is that an editorial decision is now imminent, though its timeline can vary from days to several weeks depending on the journal's workflow and the editor's schedule. You should prepare for the next communication to be a decision letter from the editor, which will include the anonymized reviewer comments and the journal's verdict (e.g., accept, minor/major revision, or reject). The presence of this status does not predict the decision's nature; a "received" status is neutral regarding the review's content. However, it does confirm that the process is moving forward and that no further delays are attributable to reviewers' tardiness. From a strategic standpoint, this is an opportune moment to begin considering how you might address potential critiques, as a request for revisions is a common outcome.

Analytically, this status update is a procedural signal within the often opaque peer review timeline. It reduces uncertainty by confirming that all requested external evaluations are now with the editor, shifting the locus of delay, if any, to the editorial team's internal processing. For authors, the appropriate action is patient vigilance; refreshing the portal excessively will not hasten the decision, but monitoring your official correspondence email for the editor's letter is crucial. The process is now in its final administrative stage before you receive substantive feedback and a definitive pathway for your work.