Peer review usually runs 1–3 months to first decision, with full publication often taking 3–6 months depending on field and journal.
Waiting on a journal can feel endless. The good news: most papers move through a predictable set of steps. This guide maps the path from submission to decision, gives realistic timelines, and offers moves that keep the file moving.
Peer Review Timeline At A Glance
Editors start with screening, send to referees, weigh reports, then issue a decision. Fast tracks exist, but the median pace in many venues falls near six weeks for an initial verdict. Variation comes from reviewer availability, field norms, and revision cycles.
| Stage | What Happens | Typical Range |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial Check | Scope fit, ethics/plagiarism checks, basic formatting, file completeness | 3–14 days |
| Reviewer Solicitation | Editor invites experts; waits for accept/decline | 3–21 days |
| External Review | Referees read and write reports | 10–30 days per journal policy |
| First Decision | Editor weighs reports; issues reject/revise/accept | 4–8 weeks from submission |
| Author Revision | Responses, new analyses, formatting updates | 1–6 weeks |
| Re-review (if needed) | Referees check revisions | 1–4 weeks |
| Acceptance To Online | Production, proofs, metadata, DOI | 1–6 weeks |
How Long Does Journal Peer Review Take On Average?
Large publishers share benchmarks. PLOS reports an average of about 43 days to first decision across a broad, multidisciplinary portfolio (editorial and peer review process). Springer Nature’s guidance for research articles places the overall review window commonly in the 3–6 month range, reflecting time for reviewers and any rounds of revision (timescale to publish).
Field Differences You Can Expect
Life sciences and medicine often run quicker because large reviewer pools and standardized methods speed evaluation. Mathematics and some theoretical areas can run slower due to longer reads and a smaller reviewer base.
Policy Promises Versus Reality
Many journals ask referees to return reports within two weeks. That target is realistic when the match is strong and the paper is short. Delays surface when invitations go unanswered, when experts are overbooked, or when a referee requests new experiments. Editorial offices usually chase late reports and, if needed, invite replacements.
What Drives The Clock Up Or Down
Several factors move the timeline. Understanding these helps you decide when to nudge and what to prepare.
Manuscript Fit And Clarity
Papers that match the journal’s scope, follow style rules, and present clear methods usually pass screening fast. Ambiguous aims, missing ethics approvals, or weak data presentation tend to cause early stalls.
Reviewer Availability
Holidays, grant deadlines, and conference seasons shrink response rates. Fields with narrow expertise can take longer to staff. Editors may send many invitations before two accept.
Revision Depth
Minor edits might skip re-review. Major changes often require another round, adding a month or more. Clear, point-by-point responses and tidy figures reduce back-and-forth.
Editorial Load
Busy editors balance many submissions. Queue length, special issues, and staff changes can slow action between steps, even when reviews are complete.
When To Reach Out Without Burning Goodwill
Polite emails help when based on milestones. Use the portal status and the journal’s stated targets as your guide.
Reasonable Contact Points
- Two weeks after submission if screening exceeds the journal’s stated window.
- Three to four weeks after “Under Review” to ask if reports have been received.
- After a missed promise date posted on the site or shared by the office.
How To Write The Nudge
Keep it brief: title, manuscript ID, stage, and a single question about status. Thank the editor and mention you’ll respond quickly to any requests.
Realistic Scenarios And Timelines
Here are common paths from submission to a decision you can plan around. Treat them as planning guides, not firm guarantees.
Fast Track Or Method Paper
Screening in a week, referees agree quickly, reports in two weeks, decision in five to six weeks. Minor revision can reach acceptance inside two months, with online publication soon after. Some journals advertise medians near 30 days to first decision in this lane.
Standard Research Article
Screening in one to two weeks, invitations over another week, reviews in three to four weeks, decision near six to eight weeks. One major revision adds one to two months, and a second, shorter round may follow.
Slow Field Or Complex Study
Multiple rounds to find referees, long reports, added analyses, and a careful re-read can push the cycle to four to six months or more. Production adds time once accepted.
How To Keep Things Moving
Small moves add up. These steps reduce friction and cut days off each stage.
Before You Submit
- Target fit: Pick a journal that publishes your method and study type.
- Follow instructions: File formats, word limits, data availability, and reporting checklists.
- Suggest referees: Add conflict-free names with emails and ORCIDs.
- Polish figures: Legible labels, units, and clear plots help.
- Share data/code: Repositories and short READMEs help.
After Submission
- Watch the portal: Status changes from “With Editor” to “Under Review” mark progress.
- Respond fast: Same-day answers to checks and queries help editors keep momentum.
- Plan revision time: Reserve a week or two in team calendars for quick turnaround.
Publisher Policies You Can Cite
Two sources worth bookmarking: PLOS outlines time to first decision and steps, and COPE publishes reviewer ethics that shape turnaround expectations and communication norms (ethical guidelines for peer reviewers). These pages inform shared standards across many journals.
Troubleshooting Delays
Sometimes the file stalls. Here’s how to triage common bottlenecks and keep momentum without hurting your chances.
| Issue | Effect On Time | What Helps |
|---|---|---|
| Hard-To-Find Reviewers | Weeks lost while invitations time out | Suggest diverse experts; include method specialists |
| Scope Mismatch | Quick desk reject or slow drift before referral | Retarget to a better-fit title; rewrite aims for clarity |
| Missing Data/Approvals | Screens or revisions stall | Upload datasets, IRB confirmations, and checklists |
| Heavy Revisions | Extra round and fresh reviews | Offer marked-up files; reply to every point |
| Production Backlog | Delay between acceptance and online | Return proofs fast; verify author metadata |
What Counts As Reasonable Waiting Time?
Four to eight weeks to an initial verdict is common across many venues, and three to six months from submission to acceptance is a practical planning window in research fields that use external referees. Outliers happen: special issues can move faster; niche areas can run longer.
Should You Withdraw And Try A Different Journal?
Withdrawal makes sense when delays are prolonged and communication fades. Before pulling the file, send a short message asking whether reviews are in hand and whether a decision is near. If no movement follows, move to a better-fit venue and carry over any improvements made during revision.
Sample Email Templates
Polite Status Check
Subject: Status Of Manuscript [ID]
Dear Dr. [Editor Last Name],
I’m writing to ask about the status of my submission titled “[Title].” The file shows “Under Review” since [date]. If reports have arrived, I’ll respond quickly. Thanks.
Inquiry After A Missed Target Date
Subject: Inquiry About Decision Timing [ID]
Dear Dr. [Editor Last Name],
Your site lists a median of [X] days to first decision. We passed that point on [date], so I wanted to check whether a verdict is imminent or if more time is needed. I appreciate any update.
What Submission Status Messages Usually Mean
With Editor
The file passed the intake checks and sits in an editor’s queue. At this point the editor screens for scope and impact, and may send quick queries about files or disclosures. If the match looks good, invitations go out to experts.
Under Review
At least one referee accepted an invitation. Some systems flip to this label as soon as invites are accepted; others after all reports arrive. The span in this state depends on how quickly experts read and write.
Required Reviews Completed
All reports landed. The editor now compares comments and drafts the verdict. This step can be fast or take a week or two if the file joins a meeting agenda or if the editor requests an extra opinion.
Decision In Process
The editorial office is finalizing the letter. The message may include only the verdict, or it may include detailed points to answer in a revision. Production teams step in only after acceptance.
Discipline Benchmarks And Public Medians
Large publishers post benchmarks that show pace. PLOS describes an average near 43 days to a first verdict on its process page linked above, and it notes many referees are asked to return reports in about two weeks. Springer Nature’s help center states that the review phase for full research articles often spans three to six months, since reviewer availability and revision rounds add real time (timescale to publish).
What Editors Say They Need From Authors
Across policy pages, editors ask for clean submissions that respect word limits, clear data availability statements, and conflict-free referee suggestions. They also ask authors to answer checks quickly and to keep all exchanges polite. COPE’s reviewer guidance shapes much of this etiquette and sets expectations for timely, confidential handling of manuscripts.
Takeaways
Plan for six weeks to hear the first verdict and three to six months for the full arc from submission to acceptance, with broad variation by field, journal, revision depth, and editorial load and production pace too. Keep the file moving with tight formatting, clear data, quick replies, and courteous follow-ups that reference stated targets.