Review after minor revision I submitted paper in a elseiver journal.It first asked for major revision. After a month of submitting revised manuscript it asked for minor revision.I adressed all the points submitted. Now it is again showing reviewers invited since last 10 days. Should I be worried.
Hard to say as the process can be unpredictable. But generally spoken, being worried will not alter any situation in this case. So don’t!

The most likely scenario seems to be that the editor send your work after minor revision to the referee who was asking for it. Then it will take probably one month to get your work accepted.

Unfortunately new referees can be invited by an editor when an old referee drops out by just not responding. For that reason, I hope that referees always finish the task they accepted.

Another reason for inviting new referees might be that an editor is just not sure about certain aspects of your work. Maybe because one of the referees indicated this in the ‘message to editor section’. 

A third reason for inviting new referees might be a reject from the final reviewer after your minor revision (assuming the editor had send it out again).

It is just guessing. From my own experience I once reveiced in a row major revision, minor revision, major revision. Two referees accepted, one referee dropped out and the new referee kept raising issues over and over again. After having addressed five extensive review reports we contacted the journal and asked for an editorial decision because the last reviewer showed no intention to finalize the process. We were lucky. ‘Do not try this at home’. 

A respectable colleague of mine (and excellent scientist and author) received two fresh reviews after major revision. You can review a paper to garbage if you want. Insecure or too busy editors are also not helping.

Publishing can be very frustrating. Reviewers and associate editors are volunteers and there seems to be a persistent believe among scientists that although not perfect, this is the best possible system to maintain scientific quality.  

An eye opener for me was an editor telling me that it is an autors’ duty to defend his/her work against low quality review reports (scientific integrity). However, it is risky. This editor also told me that even non constructive review reports have a potential to improve your work. We can learn from everyone. I do agree with that and it helps me in being more patient.