Peer review across journals usually takes 2–6 months from submission to decision, with first decisions often arriving within 2–6 weeks.
Waiting on a manuscript can feel endless. The clock runs from submission to first decision, then through one or more revision rounds, and finally to acceptance and online release. The span depends on journal workflow, field norms, reviewer availability, and how much revision your paper needs. This guide lays out the real timelines, what drives them, and smart ways to speed the path.
How Long Does The Peer Review Process Take: Stage-By-Stage Timeline
Most journals follow a similar path: editorial screening, reviewer invitations, external reviews, an editor’s decision, revision, and a final check. The ranges below reflect common practice across STEM, social sciences, and humanities.
| Stage | What Happens | Typical Time |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial Screening | Scope fit, format check, desk decision | 3–14 days |
| Reviewer Invitations | Editor invites 2–3 experts; waits for accepts | 7–21 days |
| External Reviews | Reviewers read, comment, and submit reports | 14–30 days |
| Editor Decision | Integrates reports; issues decision letter | 3–14 days |
| Author Revision | Minor or major changes; response letter | 7–60 days |
| Second Review (if any) | Checks fixes; may loop once more | 7–28 days |
| Acceptance To Online | Proofs, production, online publish | 7–21 days |
Initial Editorial Screening And Desk Decisions
The first hurdle is fast. Many manuscripts stop here due to scope mismatch or format problems. When a paper passes this filter, editors either send it out or route it for a board read. Median figures published by Royal Society journals show quick first decisions: Proceedings B posts a median of 14 days, Open Biology 30 days, and Interface 7 days for submission to first decision in early 2025. See the Royal Society’s publishing times page for current medians.
When A Paper Goes To External Review
Once reviewers accept, the timer depends on load, field, and paper complexity. Many journals set short windows to return reports, yet delays happen when invites bounce, experts decline, or a reviewer asks for more time. A clear, well prepared manuscript moves faster because reviewers spend less time puzzling over methods or missing data.
Revision Rounds Add Weeks
After the first decision, most papers face changes. Minor revision can be a quick pass. Major revision can take weeks of new analysis or added experiments. Editors often send a revised paper back to one or two original reviewers. One loop is common; a second loop happens when big claims or methods need deeper fixes.
What The Overall Span Looks Like
Across large publishers, the full process often lands in the 3–6 month window. Springer Nature’s help center notes that a full research article review usually falls in that range, with reviewer availability and revision depth driving the spread. You can read their short explainer on the timescale to publish an article.
Why Some Journals Feel Faster Or Slower
Scope Fit And Manuscript Quality
A great fit cuts time at screening and reduces reviewer shopping. Clear writing, complete methods, and clean figures help reviewers finish on schedule.
Reviewer Supply And Seasonality
Editors can wait days while invites go out in waves. Field meetings and holiday periods slow replies and reports. Niche topics face a smaller reviewer pool.
Paper Type And Field Norms
Short reports and registered reports run faster. In many humanities fields, cycles are longer because reviews are more discursive and fewer experts are available.
Journal Workflow And Production Model
Journals with continuous online publication post early view soon after acceptance. Those that batch issues add a queue between acceptance and posting.
How To Shorten Your Wait Without Cutting Corners
Pick A Well Matched Journal
Read recent articles to confirm scope match. Scan the journal’s metrics page for the median “time to first decision” and “submission to publication.” Journals publish these stats more often now, so use them when you decide where to submit.
Make The Editor’s First Glance Easy
Follow the template line by line. Check length, data availability, and reference style. Add a brief cover letter that states fit, contribution, and any linked preprint.
Help The Editor Find Reviewers
Suggest qualified reviewers and flag conflicts. Add ORCID IDs and full affiliations so editors can verify names quickly.
Write For Speedy Review
Use clear headings, labeled figures, and a tight methods section. Add a data and code link when policy allows. Label supplementary files plainly.
Respond To Reviews With Care
Reply point by point, quote each comment, and mark edits in the manuscript. Where you disagree, offer data and citations, not blunt claims.
Follow Up When The Clock Stalls
Most journals accept a polite nudge once your paper sits beyond the posted median for that stage. Keep the message short and factual.
Common Peer Review Scenarios And Likely Timelines
| Scenario | What You Might See | Likely Time |
|---|---|---|
| Desk Reject | Fast note citing scope or priority | 3–14 days |
| Minor Revision | Few edits; no second round | 6–10 weeks total |
| Major Revision | Substantial edits; one re-review | 3–6 months total |
| Transfer To Sister Journal | Editor offers transfer with reports | 8–16 weeks total |
| Busy Season Delay | Slow reviewer accepts and reports | 10–20 weeks total |
| Second Major Round | Large fixes; another re-review | 5–9 months total |
Field-By-Field Patterns
Biomedicine And Life Sciences
High submission volume and rapid methods can speed first decisions, yet added experiments stretch major revision. Many journals post quick medians to first decision, with longer spans to acceptance when extra data are requested.
Physics, Chemistry, And Engineering
Specialized topics can make reviewer searches slower. Short communications and letters publish fast, while full articles move at a steadier pace.
Computer Science
Conference peer review runs on fixed deadlines with set program committees. Journal review runs year round and may take longer than a top conference cycle.
Social Sciences
Mixed methods and long narratives can extend reports. Surveys and preregistered studies often move quicker than multi-site qualitative work.
Humanities
Fewer specialists and longer manuscripts lead to broader windows. Patience pays here; clear fit and careful editing help a lot.
How To Read “Time To First Decision” Metrics
Publishers list medians that mix editorial-only decisions with papers sent to review. A 10–30 day median often means fast desk decisions plus a subset that completed a short review cycle. The Royal Society page cited above breaks out medians by journal and shows the spread across titles in one house.
Status Labels And What They Tend To Mean
Submission portals use different wordings, yet the flow is alike. These labels map the path so you can read progress without guesswork.
With Editor
Your file passed basic checks and sits in the editor’s queue. Short waits are common while the editor screens scope and starts invites.
Reviewer Invited / Assigned
Editors contact several experts at once. Declines and timeouts are routine. The status moves once two accepts land.
Under Review
Reviewers are reading and drafting reports. A small lull after reports arrive is normal while the editor reads them.
Required Reviews Complete
All reports are in. The editor is writing the decision or checking with a board member.
Decision In Process
Final checks run just before the letter goes out. Expect news soon.
If You Hear Nothing For Weeks
Use the journal’s posted medians as your guide. If you pass the median for “with editor” or “under review,” send a brief status request with your manuscript ID and submission date. One note is enough; wait a week before a follow-up. If you still see no movement, many systems expose a “contact journal office” link for the editorial assistant. Avoid daily emails; editors see the full queue and timelines across many papers each week.
Myths That Slow Authors Down
- “A long cover letter helps.” Editors prefer a short note that states fit, main finding, and any linked dataset or preprint.
- “Only famous reviewers will be fair.” Add mid-career names; they reply fast and write clear reports.
- “Multiple active submissions are fine.” Simultaneous submission breaks rules at most journals.
How The Two Linked Sources Help You Plan
The Royal Society page lists live medians for first decision and publication across several titles, which sets a baseline for quick journals in your area. Springer Nature’s help note explains why a full review cycle often lands in the 3–6 month band. Read both during journal selection so your target pace matches the venue.
Submission To Publication: What Happens After Acceptance
Once accepted, you shift to proofs and production. Online posting can follow in one to three weeks for continuous-publishing journals. Copyediting and typesetting add days for complex math or heavy figure work. If the journal batches issues, an early view still posts quickly, while the final paginated version arrives later.
Practical Timeline Playbook
Before You Submit
- Match journal scope and audience.
- Fix format, length, and references.
- Share data and code when policy allows.
- Line up coauthor ORCID records.
During Review
- Reply to editor messages within a day or two.
- Accept minor edits to keep momentum.
- Offer a short extension request only when needed.
During Revision
- Create a response table linking each comment to a fix.
- Mark tracked changes in the file plus a clean copy.
- Run fresh checks on stats, code, and figure labels.
Bottom Line On Peer Review Timing
Plan on months, not days. A clean submission can reach a first decision in a few weeks and acceptance inside a quarter. More complex work tends to run longer and may loop twice. Use journal metrics pages and the two linked sources above to set realistic expectations and to pick venues that match your pace and field.