Most peer reviews run 4–12 weeks from editor assignment to first decision, with big swings by field, journal, and reviewer availability.
Waiting on an editorial verdict can feel endless. The clock starts at submission, but the real action begins once an editor screens your work, assigns an academic editor, and secures reviewers. From there, the first decision window usually lands within one to three months. That window stretches or shrinks with workload, reviewer response speed, and a journal’s workflow choices.
What Drives The Timeline From Submission To Decision
Three moving parts set the pace: screening at the desk, the round of expert reports, and author revisions. Each journal tunes these steps a bit differently. Some publish times on their site. Others list “typical” windows or share aggregate stats. A few now post reviewed preprints, which can trim wait time to public feedback.
Early Desk Screening
An editor checks scope, fit, and baseline quality. A portion of manuscripts stop here. Quick desk outcomes protect reviewers’ time and save authors months. Where journals publish this metric, immediate outcomes often land within days to a couple of weeks.
Finding And Confirming Reviewers
This is the hidden bottleneck. Editors may invite several experts before two accept. Delays spike during conference seasons and holidays. Responsive reviewer pools shorten the cycle; niche topics or cross-disciplinary work can slow it down.
Review Round Length
Once reviewers accept, they usually get two to eight weeks to submit reports. Some platforms nudge faster returns; others allow extensions. The stricter the deadline culture, the tighter the range.
Decision And Next Steps
Editors weigh the reports and craft a verdict: reject, revise, or accept. Most positive outcomes involve at least one revision. Minor changes can be turned around in days to a few weeks; major re-work may need months.
Peer-Review Timeline At A Glance (By Stage)
The table below compresses the usual windows people see across mainstream scholarly outlets. These spans are informative, not promises.
| Stage | What Happens | Usual Range |
|---|---|---|
| Desk Screening | Scope/fit check; quick reject or send to editor | 2–14 days |
| Reviewer Sourcing | Invites sent; two+ experts confirm | 1–3 weeks |
| Reports Due | Reviewers read and file reports | 3–8 weeks |
| Editorial Decision | Editor synthesizes reports; issues verdict | 3–10 days |
| Author Revision | Authors respond and resubmit | 1–12 weeks |
| Post-Revision Check | Editor or reviewers verify changes | 1–6 weeks |
How Long Peer Review Usually Takes By Field
Discipline norms matter. Biomedicine and life sciences often push faster decisions because results inform care or funding cycles. Physics and computer science use preprints and conference reviews, which shifts pressure to early visibility. Humanities and some social sciences rely on longer, narrative reports, which can extend cycles.
Life Sciences And Medicine
Large, editorially staffed outlets with active reviewer pools frequently land first outcomes near the shorter end of the range. For instance, PLOS lists “time to first decision” as a published metric on each journal’s metrics page. The method behind those medians appears on the PLOS metrics explainer, which defines TTFD and time-to-publication across their portfolio. You’ll still see spread by journal and study type.
Physical Sciences And Engineering
Generalist titles and society journals vary widely. Some series post dashboards with median first-round spans of five to twelve weeks. Fast tracks exist for brief reports, but mainstream full articles still rely on two substantial reviews and often a second pass.
Social Sciences And Humanities
These fields often involve longer manuscripts and deeper, contextual feedback. Expect the upper half of the range for first decisions and a higher chance of a second review cycle. The payoff is thorough, narrative reports that shape the argument and literature positioning.
Field-Specific Examples From Public Data
Author-reported dashboards and publisher pages offer real-world anchors. SciRev aggregates experiences across thousands of journals, including “duration first review round” and “total handling time” for accepted papers. Sample pages for high-volume titles show first-round spans near two to three months, with accepted-paper handling often around four months total. These figures come from contributors and fluctuate by year.
Interpreting Dashboard Numbers
“First review round” reflects time from assignment to the editor’s first decision after reports. “Total handling time (accepted)” usually covers submission to accept, excluding the authors’ time on revisions in many definitions. Check the site’s notes on what they include in each metric.
What Speeds Things Up (And What Slows It Down)
Peer review is a chain. Any weak link adds days. Here’s what typically moves the needle.
Faster Paths
- Clear fit and formatting: A manuscript that meets scope and author guidelines clears desk checks quickly.
- Suggested reviewers with emails: Ethical, conflict-free suggestions can help an editor lock in experts sooner.
- Concise cover letter: State the contribution, data availability, and any prior preprint link in a few crisp lines.
- Structured figures and data: Easy-to-parse results cut friction for reviewers.
- Rapid revision: Point-by-point responses with tracked changes speed the second pass.
Common Delays
- Reviewer scarcity: Busy seasons and niche topics mean more declines before a match.
- Ambiguous methods: Missing protocols, code, or data prompt extra rounds.
- Scope mismatch: Off-topic submissions bounce between journals and lose weeks.
- Holidays and breaks: Year-end and mid-summer are slow across many regions.
How Many Rounds Should You Expect?
Two rounds are common when the initial verdict is “minor” or “major” revision. If new experiments or analyses are needed, a second full review round is likely. Straight accept on first pass is rare outside brief communications.
Desk Outcomes
Immediate rejections happen for out-of-scope work, missing ethical approvals, or unclear results. While this stings, it shortens the path to a better-fit venue.
First Decision Types
The most frequent outcome is “revise.” Treat the reports as a roadmap, respond line-by-line, and mark edits cleanly in the manuscript. Many journals accept marked PDFs or tracked-change files to speed checks.
Publisher And Journal Benchmarks To Watch
Some outlets publish explicit time targets or rolling medians on help pages or dashboards. That transparency helps you plan. For instance, Springer Nature’s guidance page states that a full article’s review “can typically take from 3 to 6 months,” while noting that reviewer availability is the rate-limiter. You can read that statement on the Springer Nature timescale page.
Portfolio-level metrics pages are also handy. PLOS publishes per-journal medians such as “time to first decision” and “time to publication,” with definitions provided on its metrics explainer. Those values help authors gauge whether a given venue tends to deliver a verdict in weeks or months.
Examples Drawn From Public Dashboards
Community-curated snapshots often line up with publisher notes. For instance, sample SciRev pages show first-round spans of about 1.8 to 2.7 months for two large open-access titles, with accepted-paper handling totals around four months. Individual experiences vary, but the medians make planning easier when grant or thesis timelines are tight.
Preprints, Public Reviews, And Faster Visibility
Preprint + journal routes give you early visibility while peer review runs in the background. One prominent life-science venue now posts reviewed preprints with public assessments instead of the classic accept/reject gate. Their 2024 report cites a median of roughly three months from submission to a reviewed preprint’s first public version, reflecting a faster path to feedback than legacy models.
Why Public Reviews Can Help
Public assessments make the status and strengths of a study visible to readers, funders, and hiring panels. That transparency trims “in limbo” time and can help you move the work forward while revisions continue.
What To Do While You Wait
You can nudge the process without being a pest. Here’s how.
Send A Polite Nudge (At The Right Time)
If the manuscript portal shows no reviewer assignments after four weeks, a short note to the handling editor is fine. Ask if additional reviewer suggestions would help. Keep it friendly and brief.
Prepare The Likely Revision
Draft a response plan for predictable points: sample size power, statistics, and data availability. Pre-write methods clarifications and figure legends. That prep turns weeks into days once the reports arrive.
Keep Your Data Ready
Host code and datasets in trusted repositories with clear licenses. Link them in your response letter, so reviewers can verify fixes quickly. Reusable materials reduce repeat questions.
Realistic Planning Scenarios
Use these ranges to plan milestones around your study type and venue size.
Short Reports Or Brief Communications
These formats often promise a quick path. If desk checks are fast and two reviewers accept on the first invite, first outcomes can land in four to eight weeks. Adding a minor revision cycle pushes the total to two or three months.
Full Research Articles
Most fall in the middle of the range. Expect five to ten weeks for reports, plus a week for the editor’s decision. One revision round adds another month or two, depending on experiments.
Multi-Experiment, Data-Heavy Studies
These often need deeper review and a second round. Plan for the long end: two to three months for round one, a month or more for revisions, and another few weeks for the post-revision check.
Second Table: Publisher-Reported Medians And Notes
Here are sample public numbers you can use as rough guides while scouting venues. Always check each journal’s most recent stats and scope notes.
| Publisher/Source | Metric | Reported Time |
|---|---|---|
| PLOS (portfolio) | Time to first decision (per journal) | Medians published on metrics pages |
| Springer Nature (help page) | Full article review window | “Typically 3–6 months” on the timescale page |
| SciRev (community data) | First review round; total handling for accepts | Many titles near 2–3 months for first round; ~4 months total |
| eLife (reviewed preprints) | Submission to first public version | ~3 months in recent annual summaries |
How To Estimate Your Own Turnaround
Build a personal forecast instead of relying on a single number. Here’s a quick method.
Step 1: Pull Portfolio Stats
Check the journal’s “About” or “Metrics” page. If absent, scan community dashboards for recent entries. Look for “time to first decision” and “immediate reject” times.
Step 2: Map Your Study Type
Briefs and short reports track faster. Data-heavy or multi-method studies trend slower. Cross-check with editorial policies on required data and reporting guidelines.
Step 3: Add Reviewer Sourcing Risk
If your topic spans fields or uses specialized methods, pad the plan by two weeks to cover extra invites.
Step 4: Budget Revision Time
Draft a realistic timetable for experiments, new analyses, and writing. Set an internal deadline to resubmit within two to four weeks for minor changes and six to ten weeks for major ones.
When A Decision Is Overdue
Most editors welcome a short, courteous check-in if the portal shows no movement beyond the posted median. Keep your note simple: manuscript ID, submission date, a one-line request for an update, and an offer to suggest more reviewers if helpful.
When To Consider A Transfer
Many publishers run transfer programs. If the match is off or the queue is long, you can move the manuscript inside the same portfolio with reports attached. That path often shortens the next cycle.
Bottom Line
Plan for one to three months to first verdict across mainstream venues, with faster routes for briefs and slower paths for complex studies. Use each journal’s posted medians, community dashboards, and your study’s scope to set realistic milestones. Keep materials tidy, respond fast, and stay in touch with the handling editor if the dashboard stalls. That way, you control what you can—and you’ll spend less time refreshing the portal.