Peer review typically runs 4–12 weeks to first decision, with full cycles spanning 3–6 months depending on field and journal.
Waiting on a decision can feel endless. The good news: there’s a pattern. Most journals move from submission to the first editor or reviewer decision within a window of weeks, not years. Below you’ll see typical ranges, why timelines stretch, and concrete steps that speed things up without risking quality.
Peer Review Timeline At A Glance
The ranges below reflect common experiences across major publishers and society journals. They’re not promises, but they match public metrics and publisher guidance.
| Stage | Typical Duration | What Happens |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial Triage | 2–7 days | Desk check for scope, fit, and completeness; quick reject or send to reviewers. |
| Reviewer Invitation | 3–14 days | Editor invites 2–4 reviewers; delays appear if invitations are declined. |
| Review Round 1 | 3–8 weeks | Reviewers read, run checks, and submit reports; editor compiles decision. |
| Author Revision | 2–6 weeks | Time in your control; targeted edits and clearer reporting shorten this. |
| Review Round 2 | 1–6 weeks | Often faster; may be editor-only if changes are straightforward. |
| Acceptance To Online | 1–4 weeks | Copyediting, proofs, and production lead to online publication. |
Typical Time From Submission To First Decision
Across large publishers, you’ll commonly see 4–8 weeks to the first decision after external review, plus a few days for initial checks. PLOS reported a median of around six weeks to a post-review decision in earlier updates, and many society journals sit in the same band. Nature’s help pages show the sequence editors follow: intake, selection, peer review, and decision, which tracks with the week-scale ranges shown here. Some outlets post live “Journal Insights” dashboards with their own medians; these are the best guide for a specific title.
Why Timelines Vary So Much
Discipline And Study Type
Short, method-driven studies often move faster than long, multi-arm trials or data-heavy papers. Health policy or clinical venues may prioritize speed for time-sensitive work, while theoretical fields can take longer because the referee pool is smaller.
Reviewer Availability
Editors need a set of willing referees. Finding them takes time, especially near holidays and grant deadlines. One late report can stretch a round by weeks.
Manuscript Readiness
Clear reporting, complete data, clean figures, and adherence to journal checklists cut cycles. Missing data statements, ethics approvals, or code availability requests add back-and-forth.
Journal Workflow
Some journals use single-round, consolidated decisions; others request stepwise rounds. Newer models—such as reviewed preprints—publish a version with public reviews first and then iterate.
Publisher Metrics You Can Trust
Public dashboards and policy pages help you set expectations and choose a venue wisely. Check a journal’s metrics page for “time to first decision” and “submission to publication.” For instance, PLOS lists median times on its metrics page, and Nature outlines each step on its editorial process page. Elsevier teaches authors where to find a title’s “Journal Insights,” which often shows exact medians for that journal.
Benchmarks By Model And Venue Type
These are broad, experience-based bands that align with publisher posts and journal dashboards. Treat them as planning ranges, not guarantees.
Society And University Press Journals
Often 4–10 weeks to the first decision. Production pipelines differ, but accepted papers can appear online within 2–4 weeks after proofs.
Large Commercial Portfolios
Similar week-scale windows for the first decision. Dashboards for many titles show medians hovering near one to two months, with full cycles of three to six months.
Reviewed Preprint Models
Faster to a citable version, since the journal posts a public, reviewed preprint. Median submission-to-public posting can land near three months.
How To Read A Journal’s Metrics Page
Look for two lines first: “Time to first decision” and “Submission to publication.” If the page separates desk decisions from post-review decisions, use the latter for planning. Check whether times are medians or means, since outliers stretch averages. If several article types exist, pick the metric that matches your manuscript category, not the overall site figure.
Next, scan acceptance rates and revision rates. A very low acceptance rate is fine, but it implies more transfers or longer cycles. Some publishers show transfer networks; a smooth transfer can save weeks compared with starting over.
Email Etiquette If Things Stall
Polite nudges help. After the posted median has passed by two to three weeks, send a short note to the editorial office or handling editor. Include the manuscript ID, submission date, and a one-line request for a status check. Thank them for the update and avoid repeated follow-ups inside a single week; editor inboxes are busy and batching is common.
How To Estimate Your Own Timeline
- Open the target journal’s “About” or “Journal Insights” page and note its median time to the first decision and to publication.
- Add a buffer: a slow reviewer or a holiday can add 2–3 weeks to a round.
- Count your revision time honestly. If new experiments are likely, budget 4–8 weeks.
- Check whether the journal uses single-blind, double-blind, or open reports; norms vary by field and can affect speed.
- Look for fast-track options for registered reports, short communications, or policy briefs when relevant.
What Slows A Decision
- Too few suitable referees; invitations expire or are declined.
- Confusing figures, missing data availability, or unclear methods.
- Ethics or trial registration gaps that require formal correction.
- Large, multipart revisions with new experiments and new analyses.
- Seasonal bottlenecks: late December and mid-summer are common slow periods.
Steps That Shorten The Wait
None of these are tricks. They reduce friction and help editors and referees move faster.
Tune The Manuscript For The Target
Follow the author guidelines line-by-line, including data policies, reporting checklists, and figure specs. A clean submission clears desk checks fast and avoids format-only resubmissions.
Write A Helpful Cover Letter
State the main finding in one or two lines, name the gap it fills, add links to preregistration or data, and flag any related preprint. Suggest 3–6 potential referees with emails and a brief fit note.
Attach Data, Code, And Checklists
Deposit data and code in trusted repositories and link them in your manuscript. Upload CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, ARRIVE, or other field checklists where applicable.
Respond To Reviews With Precision
Quote the reviewer’s prompt, answer directly, and point to the exact line numbers you changed. Keep tone neutral and solution-oriented.
Practical Timeline You Can Plan Around
If you’re mapping a thesis date, a promotion file, or a grant progress report, use this planning map. It’s conservative enough for most venues.
| Action | Expected Time Saved | Where It Helps |
|---|---|---|
| Perfect author checklist & figures before submission | 1–2 weeks | Speeds technical checks and reviewer invites |
| Provide data/code links and ethics approvals | 1–3 weeks | Avoids queries during review |
| Suggest 3–6 qualified referees | 3–10 days | Reduces invite churn |
| Deliver tight revisions within 2–3 weeks | 2–6 weeks | Shortens overall cycle |
| Choose a journal with posted median metrics | Varies | Improves predictability and planning |
Field-Specific Notes
Biomedicine And Health
Many titles publish median times. Health policy and fast-turnaround clinical sections try to move quicker, but they still rely on volunteer referees. Trial papers can run longer due to reporting standards and checks.
Physical Sciences And Engineering
Decisions often land within one to two months. Subfields with small reviewer pools can see longer invite phases. Short communications and letters tend to move faster than long, comprehensive studies.
Social Sciences And Economics
Cycles can stretch. Fewer referees per niche and long revision stages add weeks. Preprints can help you share results while the journal process runs.
What Editors Wish Authors Did More Often
- Pick the right venue; scope mismatch is the fastest route to a desk rejection.
- Use clear titles, informative abstracts, and figure captions that tell the story.
- Tag methods, data, and code availability in obvious places.
- Spell-check names and citations to avoid queries to fix metadata.
Ethics And Professional Standards
Timelines run better when all parties follow shared norms. Reviewer conduct guidelines from COPE set expectations for response times, confidentiality, and conflicts. Editors lean on these norms when chasing late reports. See the COPE ethical guidelines for details.
Realistic Scenarios
Single-Round Acceptance
Submission on Day 0; desk checks within three days; two reviewers submit by Week 4; decision is “minor revision” in Week 5; you return edits in two weeks; editor accepts in Week 7; online release in Week 9.
Two Rounds With New Analyses
Submission on Day 0; reviewer reports arrive in Week 6; decision is “major revision” in Week 7; you run added tests and resubmit in Week 12; a second, shorter review round finishes by Week 15; acceptance follows in Week 16; online release by Week 19.
Slow Invite Phase
Submission on Day 0; editor needs multiple invites to fill the panel; first reports arrive only in Week 9; decision lands in Week 10; you revise in three weeks; acceptance around Week 15; online in Week 17.
What This Means For Your Planning
Plan for one to two months to the first decision, then another one to two months for revisions and a second decision. Complex studies or brand-new methods can take longer. If timing is tight, pick a venue with a reviewed-preprint pathway that posts a citable version sooner and updates as your revisions land.