PNAS peer review often reaches a first decision in ~4–7 weeks, with accepted papers commonly publishing within about six months.
Submitting to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) raises one burning question: how long the review will take. You want dates you can plan around, not guesswork. This guide lays out typical timelines from submission to publication, shows what can speed things up (or slow things down), and gives clear steps to keep your manuscript moving.
Review Time For PNAS Papers: Typical Windows
Turnaround starts with an editorial screen, moves to external peer review, and then cycles through revisions until a final call. PNAS reports fast full-review decisions on average, and authors often see publication within a half-year window when a paper is accepted. Community data points line up near that range, too. The tables and sections below unpack each stage so you can set expectations—and hit your own deadlines with less stress.
PNAS Timeline At A Glance
The table below compresses what many authors experience. It reflects PNAS statements on average full-review time, public-facing editorials describing decision speed, and community reports about desk decisions and review rounds.
| Stage | Typical Time Window | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial Screening (Desk Evaluation) | ~1–2 weeks | Fast triage; many manuscripts stop here. |
| External Peer Review (First Decision) | ~4–7 weeks | PNAS reports ~45 days on average for a full review decision. |
| Revision Cycle (Minor to Major) | ~1–8 weeks per round | Author speed and reviewer availability drive this window. |
| Acceptance To Online Version | ~4–5 weeks | Production, proofing, and final checks. |
| Submission To Issue Publication | ~4–6 months (accepted papers) | Issue scheduling after proofs are returned. |
What Happens At Each Step
1) Editorial Screening
After submission, your manuscript lands with an Editorial Board Member or Handling Editor. This triage checks scope, novelty, and basic presentation. Strong papers move on; others receive a quick decision. Because this step blocks the rest of the timeline, clarity in the title, abstract, and cover letter pays off.
2) External Peer Review
Once sent out, referees are asked to return reports within a set window. PNAS notes a rapid average for the full review decision. Across many fields, two or three reviews are common. If the reports converge, editors can reach a first decision promptly. Conflicting reports or replacement invites can extend time.
3) Decision Types You Might See
- Reject Without Review: A quick outcome at the screening stage when fit or strength isn’t there.
- Reject After Review: The reports don’t support revision.
- Revision (Minor/Major): Clear path forward if you address the points. Tight, point-by-point responses keep the clock short.
- Accept: Moves to production and proofs.
4) Production And Issue Scheduling
After acceptance, the paper enters copyediting, typesetting, and proof correction. PNAS indicates that articles can appear online quickly after authors return corrected proofs, and most are slotted into an issue within a few weeks. That final step is mainly a scheduling task.
Why Some Papers Move Faster
Clear Fit And Message
Editors move swiftly when scope is unmistakable and the abstract states a crisp, field-relevant result. A narrowly framed contribution with a direct claim tends to recruit the right referees quickly.
Polished Files And Data
Well-labeled figures, complete methods, accessible datasets or code, and a tidy reference list cut down on back-and-forth. Small frictions add days—sometimes weeks—across multiple hands.
Responsive Authors
Fast, thorough replies to queries and proofs keep the pipeline flowing. If you anticipate travel or leave, plan your revision window so the file doesn’t idle in your inbox.
How To Read Status Changes
Most authors watch the submission system like a hawk. These common status shifts map to real movement behind the scenes:
- With Editor: Triage or referee selection. If it lingers, the editor may be recruiting reviewers.
- Under Review: Referees have the file. Expect the first decision a few weeks after this flips, barring re-invites.
- Required Reviews Completed: Reports are in; a decision usually follows soon after.
- Revisions Submitted: The clock resets for either the editor alone (minor points) or another referee look (major points).
- Accepted: Moves to production; watch for proofs.
Realistic Ranges Across Fields
Discipline matters. Fields with many qualified referees can move briskly. Niche topics or interdisciplinary work sometimes require more invitations to secure two deep reviews. Seasonal cycles also show up in the data—late-year and summer months can be slower due to travel and teaching schedules.
Where The Published Numbers Come From
PNAS has shared several time markers: an average full-review decision near the six-week mark and a broad submission-to-publication window of about half a year when papers are accepted. Historical editorials describe similar or shorter medians, and community-reported timelines cluster around a first decision in the five-to-seven-week band once external review starts. If you’re planning a tenure or grant timeline, budget the upper end of those ranges and add buffer for one full revision cycle.
Author Actions That Shorten The Wait
Sharpen Fit And Framing
- Target the right section: Choose Research Article, Brief Report, or the appropriate format for the scope and length.
- Use clear claims: One main result per figure set beats a scatter of minor findings.
Make Review Easy
- Provide clean figures: Legible fonts, generous axis labels, and source data where the journal invites it.
- Document methods: Enough detail for replication, with links to code or data as required.
- Suggest suitable referees: Diverse, conflict-free experts who can speak to the methods and the claim.
Respond Like A Pro
- Point-by-point replies: Quote each comment, state the change, and point to line numbers.
- Flag bigger edits: If a request is out of scope, explain the constraint and offer a reasonable test or analysis instead.
- Keep tempo: Submit revisions promptly; even a week saved here shortens the full arc.
Factors That Delay A Decision
Many delays are fixable. Others are structural. Use this list to separate what you can change from what you can only plan around.
| Factor | How It Delays | What You Can Do |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewer Recruitment | Multiple invites before two accept. | Suggest balanced, conflict-free experts with emails. |
| Ambiguous Scope | Extra triage, extra queries. | Align title/abstract with a single, clear claim. |
| Figure Or Data Problems | Requests for files, re-exports, or raw data. | Upload clean figures and follow data policies up front. |
| Major Re-analysis | New experiments or extensive code changes. | Pre-empt common questions in methods and SI. |
| Seasonal Slowdowns | Reviewer or editor travel and holidays. | Submit well before peak away periods when possible. |
Planning Backward From A Deadline
Got a grant report, job packet, or thesis deposit on the calendar? Work backward with cushions. A simple plan is below; adjust to your field and the complexity of revisions.
Example Backward Plan
- +6 months: Target date for appearing in an issue.
- +4–5 weeks after acceptance: Online version goes live after proofs.
- Submission +5–7 weeks: First decision arrives for many papers sent to review.
- Revisions: Hold 2–6 weeks for fixes, figures, and a fresh pass on the text.
How PNAS Describes Its Process
PNAS lays out roles, ethics, and reviewer expectations in public pages. You can read the peer-review standards and responsibilities for reviewers and editors, plus production steps after acceptance. Two helpful anchor points:
- Peer Review Process And Responsibilities — what referees are asked to do and how they’re guided.
- Editorial Perspective On Turn Times — a published look at decision medians and editorial workflows.
Field-Tested Tips For A Smoother Path
Tune The Abstract For Fit
Start with the claim, then the method in a short phrase, then the clearest outcome metric. Editors and referees read hundreds of abstracts; direct beats ornate.
Keep The Methods Audit-Ready
Link to preregistrations where relevant, keep code repositories public after acceptance, and state versions for software packages. A paper that’s easy to reproduce tends to inspire more confident reviews.
Own The Revision Letter
Thank the reviewers, then move straight into line-referenced replies. When you disagree, explain the constraint and show any extra checks you ran. If a request needs time, say so and set a date you can meet.
What To Expect After Acceptance
Production begins with copyediting and typesetting, followed by proofs. Turn those around fast. PNAS notes that most articles appear in an issue shortly after proof corrections are returned, and the online version can post promptly once proofs are finalized. Keep your affiliations, funding statements, and author order locked, and double-check figure permissions before you hit approve.
A Quick Reality Check
Even with the averages above, outliers exist. Papers that need new experiments or a second full review round can push timelines. A fresh statistical check or data release sometimes saves time later by pre-empting production queries. Build slack into your plans, communicate with coauthors, and keep all source files organized so last-minute requests don’t snowball.
Takeaway
If your manuscript clears the editorial screen and goes to referees, a first decision near the six-week mark is common. One clean revision cycle often lands acceptance soon after, with online publication a few weeks after proofs and appearance in an issue not long after that. Set your plan around those windows, keep your responses crisp, and you’ll give your paper the best shot at a quick, clean path to print.