No—the “under review” status in medical journals means your manuscript is being evaluated, not rejected.
Seeing that tag in a submission portal can spike stress. You hit submit, days pass, and the tracker sits on the same message. Here’s what that label signals, what usually happens next, and when to act so you can plan your time with less anxiety.
What “Under Review” Usually Covers
Editorial systems group several steps under one banner. The label often starts once an editor begins outreach to external referees and keeps running while experts read your work and send reports. Some journals even show the same label during an in-house technical check or when the editor weighs the returned reports.
Two quick takeaways: the tag is progress, and it doesn’t hint at the decision yet.
Common Status Labels Across Publishers
These are the most common messages you’ll see in dashboards. Wording varies across platforms, but the gist stays steady.
| Status Label | What It Usually Means |
|---|---|
| Submitted | Files received; basic checks pending. |
| With Editor | Handling editor assigned; scope fit and reviewer search in motion. |
| Under Review | Reviewer invitations sent and/or active evaluations underway. |
| Required Reviews Completed / Reviews Completed | Reports in; editor assessing next steps. |
| Decision In Process | Editor drafting outcome based on reports and policy. |
| Minor/Major Revision | Revise to meet points raised; deadline set. |
| Revise And Resubmit | Substantial changes requested; fresh round likely. |
| Accept | Editorial acceptance; production steps next. |
| Reject | Not moving forward at this journal; feedback often included. |
Does The “Under Review” Tag Mean A Denial In Journals?
No. The tag simply signals that evaluation steps are active. Editors may still be inviting suitable referees, waiting for confirmations, or reading full reports. Many manuscripts move from this stage to revision or acceptance.
Publishers also note that one label can span several moves. See the status explainer from Editorial Manager, which describes outreach, active reading, and editorial assessment under the same tag. Also see Springer Nature’s editorial process for the early checks that sit before external evaluation.
Why The Label Can Sit For Weeks
Peer review is human. Experts volunteer time, and schedules vary. Editors often invite multiple referees to ensure at least two or three firm reports. Some invitees decline; some accept and later withdraw. Each swing can add days.
Fields also differ. Fast-moving clinical trials may draw quick eyes; methods papers can take longer because reviewers try steps themselves. Seasonality matters too—late summer and major holidays can slow replies.
What A Normal Timeline Looks Like
Typical First Decision Window
There isn’t a single clock, but many science titles aim for a first call within six to eight weeks from the start of external evaluation. Some reach a call sooner when two aligned reports arrive early. Others need more time if a referee withdraws or a third view is added.
Factors That Stretch The Clock
High workload months, specialist topics with a short reviewer pool, or complex methods sections can add weeks. If your study includes new datasets or custom code, referees may try to reproduce key steps, which adds reading and testing time.
How To Read Small Shifts In The Tracker
Dashboards sometimes swap labels during the same stage. A common sequence is “with editor” → “under review” → “required reviews completed” → “decision in process.” Your dashboard may also flip back to “with editor” after reports arrive while the editor weighs the file. That back-and-forth doesn’t signal an outcome by itself.
What Each Jump Often Signals
A jump to “reviews completed” usually means reports are in and an editorial call is near. A move back to “with editor” can mean a reviewer withdrew, the editor is seeking one more report, or the editor is synthesizing feedback before a call. A pause at “decision in process” often reflects checks on policy or ethics language.
After You Submit A Revision, Why The Same Label Returns
Many journals send revised files to the same referees to confirm fixes. That can reset the tag even when changes were minor. In other cases the editor reads the revision alone and still keeps the label until the call is ready. Both paths are routine.
If the tracker shows the same tag for a few weeks after you uploaded a revision, treat it as part of the cycle rather than a signal about outcome.
When A Long Silence Is Still Normal
Stretchy timelines sting, but many are routine. Three patterns come up often:
- Slow reviewer recruitment. The editor may be inviting extra experts after early declines.
- Busy calendar windows. Exams, grant seasons, and conferences can drag out responses.
- One more opinion. Conflicting reports can prompt the editor to add a tie-breaker.
When To Send A Polite Nudge
Check the journal’s guidance first. If no timeline is posted, many authors wait six to eight weeks from the start of external evaluation before writing a short status request. Keep it brief, include the manuscript ID, and ask whether any extra information would help.
Publisher Notes You Can Trust
Two helpful primers explain what that tag covers and how editorial steps run. The links above lead to a status explainer from Elsevier’s system and a step-by-step outline from Springer Nature. Both pages help decode what you see in dashboards.
What Editors Look For During The Stage
Editors scan for fit, ethics approvals, data clarity, and sound method claims. Referees dig into aims, design, statistics, and reporting. Clear figures, clean data sharing links, and a tight cover letter all help the process run smoothly.
Ethics And Confidentiality During Review
Referees and editors handle manuscripts under strict confidentiality rules. Reports should be fair, grounded in the file’s content, and free from competing interests. Authors should avoid naming suggested referees who have close ties and should not post full reports online unless the journal runs open review. Clear data availability and consent statements reduce extra checks at this step.
How To Stay Productive While You Wait
Use the window to prepare materials you may need after a call arrives.
- For a revision: Start a response template and list likely fixes for methods, stats, and figure clarity.
- For acceptance: Check data and code links, image resolution, and any consent wording needed in the final files.
- For rejection: Line up a shortlist of next-best titles, tweak your cover letter, and match scope and formatting.
Common Myths And The Reality
“Long ‘under review’ always means a denial.” No. Length often reflects reviewer recruitment, not verdicts.
“A flip back to ‘with editor’ means doom.” Not by itself. It can be a neutral handoff while the editor reads reports or lines up one more referee.
“Fast first decisions are rare.” Many journals post quick calls when two aligned reports land fast.
Typical Waiting Windows And Smart Moves
Use this quick planner to decide your next step without guesswork.
| Status | Typical Wait Window | Best Next Step |
|---|---|---|
| With Editor | 3–14 days | Hold steady; prepare figures and data links. |
| Under Review | 4–8 weeks | Mark a check-in at week 6–8 if no movement. |
| Reviews Completed | 3–14 days | Watch for a call; draft reply-to-reviewers shell. |
| Decision In Process | 1–7 days | Stay close to email; confirm author list and ORCID. |
| Revision | 1–8 weeks (set by journal) | Divide tasks across coauthors; keep a changelog. |
How To Write A Clear Status Email
Here’s a simple note you can adapt:
Subject: Status request – Manuscript ID [XXXX]
Dear [Managing Editor/Editorial Office],
I’m writing to ask about the status of Manuscript ID [XXXX], submitted on [date]. The tracker has shown “under review” since [date]. I’m happy to provide any extra materials if helpful.
Kind regards,
[Name], corresponding author
Signs The File Is Still Moving
Many platforms show extra breadcrumbs such as “reviewer invited,” “reviewer accepted,” or “review submitted.” Some hide those details to reduce noise. If your dashboard shows sub-steps, you can map momentum without guessing.
How Platforms Phrase Similar Steps
Names differ, but the idea matches:
- Editorial Manager: Many titles use “with editor,” “reviewer invited,” “under review,” and “required reviews completed.”
- ScholarOne: Common phrasing is “awaiting reviewer invitation,” “awaiting reviewer assignment,” and “awaiting AE decision.”
- In-house systems: Some dashboards keep only two or three broad tags to limit refresh anxiety.
How To Avoid Delays Before You Submit
Small fixes at the start can shave days later.
- Pick a title and abstract that nail scope and methods.
- Share data and code in stable links with readme notes.
- Check reporting checklists used in your field and attach them.
- Name conflicts and approvals clearly in the cover letter.
- Suggest a few unbiased referees with correct emails and fields.
Glossary Of Related Labels
Desk reject: A no-go based on fit or basic checks, sent before external evaluation.
Transfer offer: An invite to move the file to a sister title; you choose whether to accept.
Expression of concern: A public notice about a published paper while checks run.
Corrigendum/erratum: A post-publication fix for errors in a published article.
What To Do After A Decision
Revision: Triage points by effort: easy text fixes first, then figures, then analyses. Reply in a numbered list that mirrors each point. Quote only the minimum stub of each comment so the reply stays tidy.
Acceptance: Upload final files, fix author order if needed, and complete forms fast to avoid production delays.
Rejection: Read reports with a cool head. Patch fixable points and send to the next venue on your list while the work is fresh.
Bottom Line For Authors
The tag signals motion, not a verdict. Most files sitting at that stage are simply waiting on people—editors lining up referees or experts reading in detail. Plan next steps, set a check-in date, and keep writing.