Peer review of a paper typically takes 4–8 weeks to a first decision, and full cycles often span 3–6 months with revisions.
The clock starts the day you submit. An editor screens the manuscript, invites reviewers, waits for reports, then weighs a decision. Each step adds days. The range varies by field, journal workload, reviewer availability, and the depth of changes after the first round.
Peer Review Time For A Paper: Typical Ranges
Most journals target a first decision within one to two months. Some houses publish live metrics, which helps set expectations. In life sciences, a first decision near the six-week mark is common at high-volume outlets. Cancer journals in one major portfolio report a median close to five weeks when external reports are used. Broad-scope megajournals often sit near the six-week line as well. Times shorten when editors desk-reject quickly, and stretch when reviewer invitations bounce or multiple rounds are needed.
What “First Decision” Actually Means
“First decision” covers several outcomes: desk rejection, reject after review, or a request to revise. A revise decision keeps the clock running. Many authors see acceptance only after one or two cycles. That’s why the full path—from first upload to online publication—lands closer to several months than several weeks.
Broad Benchmarks By Field
The spread below reflects common patterns reported by journal families and society publishers. Treat it as a planning tool, not a promise.
| Field | Time To First Decision | Full Cycle (Submission → Online) |
|---|---|---|
| Biology & Medicine | 5–7 weeks for many large titles | 5–7 months with revisions and production |
| Physics & Math | 4–8 weeks in society journals | 4–6 months; faster for short formats |
| Computer Science | 4–10 weeks (journal); conferences use fixed review windows | 4–8 months for journals; conference paths differ |
| Social Sciences | 6–10 weeks, sometimes longer | 6–9 months, pacing varies by journal |
| Chemistry & Materials | 4–6 weeks at many research journals | 4–6 months with iterations |
What Drives The Clock Up Or Down
Several levers shape the timeline. Knowing them lets you trim delays you can control and anticipate the rest.
Editor Screening Speed
Fast triage saves wasted weeks. Some houses issue early “no” decisions in a few days when scope or fit is off. That frees you to transfer or resubmit without a long wait. Clear cover letters and clean formatting help an editor route the paper to the right academic editor on day one.
Reviewer Pickup And Report Time
Invitations may bounce several times before two or three people accept. Once they accept, report time sits near the two-to-three-week mark at many journals. Busy seasons push this out. A tight, well-structured manuscript with clear figures and a short method checklist tends to yield faster reads.
Revision Depth
Minor edits keep you on a short cycle. Major changes—extra experiments, new analysis, or reformatting—push the calendar out. A clean response letter and tracked-change file cuts one round of back-and-forth.
Journal Workload And Field Norms
High-volume venues deal with cascades of submissions, which means more invitations per paper. Niche journals may search longer for the right experts. Conference-driven fields bunch reviews around deadlines, so off-cycle journal submissions can be smoother.
Real Numbers From Publisher Sources
Large megajournals in the life sciences report an average near 43 days to first editorial decision. That figure includes time to collect and assess reports. One cancer-research publisher lists a median near 35 days for decisions with external review, and about four days for desk rejections. Many commercial houses also publish live dashboards with “Review Time” charts by title.
To see a concrete policy and metric page, check the PLOS ONE process and the AACR turnaround metrics. Those pages show how editors route manuscripts, how reviewers are engaged, and what recent decision times look like across their portfolios.
How To Estimate Your Own Timeline
Use the steps below to build a realistic schedule for a single submission. This approach works across fields with small tweaks.
Step 1: Check A Journal’s Posted Metrics
Many publishers display median weeks to first decision and to acceptance. Look for those on the journal’s “About” or “Journal Insights” pages. Treat medians as guides. Skew can appear when desk rejections are numerous, since those decisions hit in days while full reviews take weeks.
Step 2: Add A Buffer For Reviewer Churn
Editors often invite five to ten reviewers to land two reports. Each declined invite adds one to three days. A paper that needs a subject-matter specialist and a methods expert may need extra rounds of invites. Build in a one-to-two-week cushion.
Step 3: Budget For One Full Revision Cycle
Most papers go through at least one set of changes. Block two to four weeks for your own edits, and another two to four weeks for second-round reads. Complex additions—new experiments or reanalysis—need more time.
Step 4: Include Production
After acceptance, copyediting and proofing add one to four weeks. Online-first schedules can post earlier; print issues add more lag.
What Authors Can Do To Speed Things Up
You can’t control every part of the pipeline. You can shave days with smart prep and tidy responses.
Pick The Right Target
Match scope, article type, and length to the venue. A misfit triggers triage or slow hunts for reviewers. Scan recent issues to gauge methods and sample sizes they’re running.
Make It Easy To Review
Number figures and tables clearly. Label axes. Put raw data and code in a clean repository link. Add a brief cover letter that states the claim, the main result, and why the study fits the journal. Clarity reduces back-and-forth emails.
Suggest Credible Reviewers
Some journals invite suggestions. Offer three to five names with institutional emails and no conflicts. Editors still decide, but a well-curated list can cut invitation churn.
Respond Fast And Thoroughly
When a decision letter arrives, triage the points. Answer each item in a point-by-point reply. Where you can’t run a request, give a short, evidence-based rationale. Clean diffs speed second looks.
Stage-By-Stage Clock You Can Plan Around
These bands reflect common schedules for mainstream research journals. Your mileage may vary with specialty, novelty, and study complexity.
| Stage | Typical Time | What Speeds It Up |
|---|---|---|
| Editor Triage | 2–7 days | Clear fit, tidy files, concise cover letter |
| Reviewer Invitations | 3–14 days | Good reviewer suggestions, complete methods |
| Reviewer Reports | 14–28 days | Readable figures, data access, crisp writing |
| Editorial Weighing | 2–7 days | Aligned reports, clear response options |
| Author Revisions | 14–30+ days | Point-by-point reply, tracked changes |
| Second-Round Checks | 7–21 days | Complete answers, short resubmission lag |
| Acceptance To Online | 7–28 days | Quick proofs, no figure fixes needed |
When A Delay Needs A Nudge
Silence happens. A short, polite note to the editor after eight weeks is fine if the paper has been “under review” for a while. Keep it factual: title, manuscript ID, submission date, and a short query about status. If things stall past three months with no updates, a second note is reasonable. If the journal cannot secure reports, you can withdraw and try a better-fit venue.
Desk Rejection And Cascades
An early “no” often arrives in days. Many publishers offer a transfer link to a sister title. Transfers can carry the original files and even the reviews, which preserves time already spent. If the scope match was the issue, a cascade may move faster than a fresh start elsewhere.
Preprints And Open Reports
Posting a preprint places your study in view while the journal process runs. In some fields, editors invite reviews on the preprint or allow linked community feedback. Open report models can post referee comments with the article. These routes don’t shorten every case, yet they add transparency and let peers read the work while you wait.
Plan Backwards From Your Deadline
If a grant or thesis clock is ticking, submit months ahead. A safe plan is one major journal attempt, one transfer or resubmission, and time for at least one deep revision. That puts the window near half a year end-to-end. A smooth path can beat that; a method-heavy study with new experiments may need longer.
Takeaways You Can Act On Today
- Aim for journals that show real metrics and publish in your area.
- Scrub the manuscript for clarity and completeness before upload.
- Offer reviewer suggestions with full details and no conflicts.
- Reply to decision letters fast, with a clean, numbered response.
- Use a preprint to share the work while the journal process runs.
Method Notes (How This Guide Was Built)
Numbers in this guide draw on publisher pages that report decision times, society journal timing pages, and large-scale reports that measure reviewer report days. Where publishers post a range, this article reflects that band and rounds to whole weeks for planning. Linked pages above show the underlying methods those outlets use to collect their timing metrics.