How Long Does Peer Review Take? Timeline by Field (2026)

Peer review timelines vary dramatically across journals and academic fields, ranging from as fast as 15 days to over six months. Understanding how long peer review takes is crucial for planning your research dissemination strategy, meeting grant or promotion deadlines, and managing your expectations as an author.

Based on 2026 data from major publishers, the median time to first decision across all fields is approximately 45-60 days. However, this masks significant variation: open access journals like PLOS ONE (29 days) and PeerJ (35 days) typically provide faster decisions than traditional subscription journals, which average 75-90 days. Highly selective journals like Nature or Science may reach initial decisions in 7-21 days, but this often includes a high rate of desk rejection before peer review begins.

This guide provides comprehensive, up-to-date information on peer review timelines across 25+ major journals, explains what happens during each stage of review, and offers practical strategies for choosing journals and managing the waiting period. Whether you’re an early-career researcher submitting your first manuscript, a student working with the Journal of Emerging Investigators, or an established scientist evaluating publication options, you’ll find specific data to inform your decisions.

In this guide, you’ll learn:

• Detailed review timelines for specific journals, including PLOS ONE, PeerJ, Nature, Science, and others
• What happens during each stage of the review process
• Why are some journals faster than others
• How to speed up your own review timeline
• When to follow up with editors
• How to choose journals based on review speed and other factors

Let’s dive into the data and demystify the peer review process.

How Long Does Peer Review Actually Take?

For authors needing immediate context before diving into details, here’s the reality across academic publishing.

Typical range from submission to first decision: 12 to 24 weeks (3 to 6 months). This represents the middle 50% of experiences across fields and journals. Your manuscript may move faster or slower, but this range encompasses most normal peer review experiences.

Fast scenarios (8 to 12 weeks) occur in medicine, public health, and rapidly evolving technical fields where journals maintain large reviewer pools and prioritize quick decisions. Journals explicitly advertising fast peer review or using continuous publication models also fall into this category.

Standard scenarios (12 to 20 weeks) characterize natural sciences, engineering, psychology, and interdisciplinary journals. This timeline allows for reviewer recruitment challenges, typical review completion rates, and editorial deliberation without unusual delays.

Slow scenarios (20 to 30+ weeks) are common in humanities, mathematics, economics, and highly specialized fields where small expert communities make reviewer recruitment difficult. Traditional print-schedule journals and those with volunteer editorial boards often show these longer timelines.

Extreme delays beyond 30 weeks typically signal problems rather than normal processing—reviewer failures requiring re-review, editorial transitions, administrative issues, or journals simply moving slowly due to poor management. These warrant an author inquiry rather than continued passive waiting.

The range reflects genuine variability in disciplinary norms, journal efficiency, reviewer availability, and manuscript complexity. Understanding where your submission falls within this spectrum requires knowing your field’s typical patterns and your target journal’s specific performance metrics.

Peer Review Timelines by Journal (2026 Updated Data)

Below is a comprehensive comparison of peer review timelines across major academic journals. Data reflects median times reported by journals and author experiences.

How to use this table: Find your target journal and note the typical timeline. Remember that these are median times—your experience may vary based on manuscript quality, revisions needed, and reviewer availability.

PLOS ONE Review Timeline: What to Expect in 2026

PLOS ONE maintains one of the most transparent and efficient peer review processes in academic publishing. Based on 2026 data, authors can expect the following timeline:

Initial Editorial Assessment: 3-5 days after submission, an academic editor reviews your manuscript for scope and basic quality standards. PLOS ONE has a broad scope, so desk rejection is less common than at specialized journals.

Time to First Decision: The median time to first decision is 29 days from submission. This includes the time needed to find reviewers and receive their reports. PLOS ONE typically requests 2-3 peer reviews per manuscript.

Review Criteria: Unlike traditional journals, PLOS ONE evaluates manuscripts primarily on scientific rigor rather than perceived impact or novelty. This speeds up the decision process since reviewers focus on methodology and validity.

Revision Timeline: If revisions are requested (the most common outcome), authors typically have 60 days to resubmit. The second round of review usually takes 2-3 weeks. Understanding how to respond to peer review comments effectively can significantly speed up this process.

Publication Speed: Once accepted, articles are published online within 2-3 weeks. Total time from submission to publication averages 45-60 days for manuscripts accepted without major revisions.

Fast Track Option: While PLOS ONE doesn’t offer a formal fast-track service, its rigorous editorial triage and large pool of editors often result in faster processing than comparable journals.

Tips for Faster Review at PLOS ONE:

• Ensure your manuscript meets technical requirements before submission
• Suggest qualified reviewers in your cover letter
• Respond to revision requests within 30 days rather than waiting the full 60 days
• Use the PLOS ONE manuscript template to avoid formatting delays

PeerJ Review Process: Timeline and What Makes It Different

PeerJ has built a reputation as one of the fastest peer-reviewed journals in biological and medical sciences. Here’s what authors should know about their review timeline in 2026:

Unique Review Model: PeerJ offers optional open peer review, where reviewer names and reports can be published alongside the article. While this is optional, it can incentivize thorough, constructive feedback.

Time to First Decision: The median time to first decision is 35 days. PeerJ’s editorial board actively manages the review process to prevent delays from unresponsive reviewers.

Pre-Print Integration: PeerJ encourages authors to post preprints during the review process, allowing your work to gain visibility and citations before formal publication.

Review Stages:

1. Editorial Check (2-4 days): Staff editors verify formatting and scope
2. Academic Editor Assignment (3-7 days): An expert in your field is assigned
3. Peer Review (14-28 days): Typically 2 reviewers provide feedback
4. Decision Communication (1-2 days): Clear decision with detailed feedback

Publication Speed: Once accepted, PeerJ publishes articles within 2-3 weeks. Their streamlined production process is among the fastest in academic publishing.

Acceptance Rate: PeerJ maintains an acceptance rate of approximately 51%, balancing quality with accessibility. The journal focuses on sound science rather than perceived novelty.

Cost Considerations: PeerJ offers a lifetime publication plan ($399 for unlimited publications) alongside traditional per-article fees ($1,195). This can influence your decision if you publish frequently.

When to Choose PeerJ:

• You need rapid publication (conferences, grant deadlines)
• Your research is methodologically sound but not “groundbreaking.”
• You want transparent, open review
• You’re an early-career researcher building a publication record

Journal of Emerging Investigators: Timeline for Student Research

The Journal of Emerging Investigators (JEI) is unique as it exclusively publishes research conducted by middle and high school students. The review process is designed to be educational as well as evaluative.

Review Timeline: 6-8 weeks from submission to first decision. This is longer than some professional journals, but it reflects JEI’s commitment to providing detailed, educational feedback to young researchers.

Mentorship Component: All submissions must include a teacher or mentor sponsor. This mentor receives the reviews alongside the student and helps guide revisions.

Review Process:

1. Initial Screening (1 week): Staff editors ensure the research meets basic standards and is student-led
2. Academic Editor Assignment (1-2 weeks): A PhD-level scientist in the relevant field is assigned
3. Peer Review (3-4 weeks): Reviewers are instructed to provide constructive, educational feedback
4. Revision Period (varies): Students typically have 4-6 weeks to revise based on feedback

What Makes JEI Different:

• Reviewers know they’re evaluating student work and adjust expectations accordingly
• Feedback is more detailed and educational than a typical peer review
• The focus is on the student’s contribution and learning, not just results
• Acceptance decisions consider the educational context

Publication Timeline: Once accepted, articles are typically published within 4-6 weeks. Total time from submission to publication averages 10-14 weeks.

Acceptance Considerations: JEI doesn’t publish acceptance rate statistics, but they emphasize that all well-conducted student research has potential for publication. The key criteria are:

• Student-led investigation and analysis
• Proper scientific methodology
• Clear presentation of results
• Demonstrated learning and critical thinking

Tips for Students Submitting to JEI:

• Work closely with your mentor throughout the process
• Don’t be discouraged by requests for revisions—they’re learning opportunities
• Be prepared to explain your methodology in detail
• Respond to reviewer feedback thoughtfully and completely

The Complete Peer Review Timeline: Stage by Stage

Understanding where time gets spent during peer review demystifies the process and helps you interpret what your submission status actually means at each stage. When your status shows “Under Review” or “With Reviewers,” this stage is actively underway, typically lasting 4-8 weeks.

Stage 1: Initial Submission to Editorial Screening (1 to 14 days)

When you submit your manuscript, it enters an administrative queue before any editorial evaluation begins. The manuscript management system logs receipt, generates a manuscript number, and routes the submission to the appropriate editorial handling team. For large journals receiving hundreds of weekly submissions, this administrative processing alone can take several days.

The editor-in-chief or managing editor conducts initial screening to determine whether the manuscript warrants full consideration. They assess obvious scope alignment, completeness of submission materials, adherence to journal formatting and ethical requirements, and basic quality thresholds. Papers failing these initial checks receive desk rejection, often within three to seven days of submission.

Manuscripts passing initial screening get assigned to an associate editor with relevant expertise. At journals with large editorial boards, finding an available editor can take another few days. At smaller journals where one or two editors handle all submissions, assignment happens immediately, but the editor might be backlogged.

What authors see: Status typically shows “Submitted” or “With Editor” during this phase. The lack of movement feels frustrating but reflects normal processing, not neglect.

Timeline reality: Most journals complete this stage within one week. Delays beyond two weeks either indicate high submission volume, editorial transitions, or journal-specific administrative patterns. Some journals batch-process submissions, creating apparent delays that are actually scheduled workflow.

Stage 2: Associate Editor Assigns Reviewers (7 to 30 days)

This stage consumes more time than authors realize and represents the first major bottleneck in peer review timelines. The associate editor must identify qualified reviewers, send invitations, follow up with non-responders, and find replacements when reviewers decline.

The challenge arises from the availability and willingness of reviewers. Studies show that 40-50% of invited reviewers decline, citing time constraints, conflicts of interest, or lack of relevant expertise. In specialized fields, the pool of qualified reviewers may number only dozens globally, and these individuals receive constant review invitations from multiple journals.

The associate editor typically invites four to six potential reviewers, hoping to secure two or three acceptances. When initial invitations yield insufficient acceptances, the editor must identify and invite additional candidates, extending the timeline. For interdisciplinary manuscripts or emerging research areas where reviewer expertise is rare, this process becomes particularly difficult.

What actually happens behind the scenes: Editors send batch invitations, wait several days for responses, send follow-up reminders to non-responders, and then start over with new candidates when necessary. Each cycle adds five to seven days. Securing the necessary reviewer complement can require two or three invitation cycles, consuming two to four weeks before review actually begins.

What authors see: Status shows “Editor Assigned” or “Reviewer Invited” during much of this period, with no indication of how many invitation cycles have occurred or how many reviewers have been secured. The status might remain unchanged for weeks while this recruitment process unfolds.

Timeline reality: Fast journals with established reviewer databases complete this in one week. Typical journals take two to three weeks. Journals in specialized fields or those struggling to recruit reviewers may take four weeks or more. This stage alone can consume the time authors expect for the entire review process.

Stage 3: Peer Review Period (30 to 90 days)

Once reviewers accept invitations, journals typically request review completion within three to four weeks. This deadline is rarely met. Research on peer review practices shows that actual review completion times average six to eight weeks, with substantial variation based on reviewer workload, manuscript complexity, and individual reviewer habits.

Reviewers are volunteers conducting unpaid work alongside their primary professional responsibilities. They fit manuscript review between teaching, research, administrative duties, and personal commitments. A reviewer might accept an invitation in October but not find time to actually read the manuscript until December. Journals send reminder emails, but these generate limited compliance from busy academics.

The variability in individual reviewer completion times creates coordination challenges. If one reviewer completes within two weeks but another takes ten weeks, the editor must wait for all reviews before proceeding to a decision. The slowest reviewer determines the timeline, and editors typically wait several weeks past the requested deadline before seeking replacement reviewers.

What authors see: Status shows “Under Review” or “With Reviewers” during this entire period, providing no information about how many reviewers have submitted reports versus how many remain outstanding. The status staying unchanged for months creates anxiety because you cannot distinguish between an active review and a neglected manuscript.

Timeline reality: Journals requesting three-week review completion typically receive first reviews after four to six weeks and final reviews after eight to twelve weeks. Fast reviewers complete in two to three weeks. Slow reviewers take twelve to sixteen weeks or never complete at all, requiring editor intervention to request additional reviews, starting the cycle over.

Stage 4: Reviews Return to Editor (3 to 7 days)

After reviewers submit their reports, the manuscript returns to the associate editor’s queue for evaluation. At this point, all information needed for decision-making exists, but the editor must find time to carefully read the manuscript, review all reports, synthesize recommendations, and formulate their own assessment.

Academic editors handle dozens of manuscripts simultaneously while maintaining their primary professional roles. The time between receiving complete reviews and beginning evaluation depends entirely on editor availability and workload. An editor might receive reviews on Monday but not evaluate them until the following week due to teaching schedules, conference travel, or research commitments.

What authors see: Status might change to “Required Reviews Complete” or “With Editor” at some journals, signaling that reviewer work is done. Other journals maintain “Under Review” status throughout, not indicating that this stage has been reached. The lack of status transparency at many journals means authors cannot distinguish between waiting for reviews versus waiting for an editorial decision.

Timeline reality: Three to seven days represents the typical duration, though highly efficient editors evaluate immediately upon receiving complete reviews, while backlogged editors might take two to three weeks. This stage feels invisible to authors but consumes time that adds to the overall timeline without any visible progress indicators.

Stage 5: Editorial Decision Formulation (7 to 21 days)

Once the associate editor completes manuscript evaluation, they formulate a decision recommendation and forward it to the editor-in-chief or editorial board for final approval. This hierarchical review exists to maintain consistency in editorial standards and ensure that individual editors’ recommendations align with journal policies and quality expectations.

The editor-in-chief must review the associate editor’s recommendation, reviewer reports, and often the manuscript itself before confirming the decision. At journals with editorial board governance, complex or borderline decisions might be discussed at periodic board meetings, potentially adding weeks to the timeline if the next meeting is scheduled far in advance. Understanding how journal editors make decisions can help you interpret delays at this stage.

The decision complexity factor affects duration significantly. Straightforward cases with reviewer consensus and clear manuscript quality receive quick confirmation. Complex cases involving conflicting reviewer recommendations, borderline contribution levels, scope ambiguity, or methodological concerns require extended deliberation, sometimes including consultation with additional editorial board members or requests for supplementary reviewer opinions.

What authors see: Status changes to “Decision in Process” at most journals, indicating that evaluation is complete and final decision communication is being prepared. Some journals maintain “With Editor” status throughout, providing no signal that final stages are underway.

Timeline reality: One week represents the fast scenario when decisions are straightforward and the editor-in-chief review happens promptly. Two to three weeks is typical when editorial calendars are full and multiple manuscripts require decision review. Four weeks or more occur when editorial boards meet periodically, decisions prove complex, or journals experience editorial transitions.

Stage 6: Decision Communication (1 to 3 days)

After the decision is finalized, administrative steps remain before author notification. The decision must be formally entered into the manuscript management system, decision letters must be prepared using appropriate templates and customized with specific guidance, reviewer comments must be formatted and anonymized for author communication, and communication must be quality-checked before sending.

At large journals with dedicated editorial staff, this happens within a day or two. At smaller journals where editors handle administrative tasks themselves or where part-time staff work limited hours, this stage can extend to a week. The status showing “Decision in Process” often persists through this administrative phase even though the substantive decision is already made.

What authors see: Status remains “Decision in Process” until the notification email arrives. You might receive the decision email before status updates in the portal, or vice versa. The gap between decision finalization and communication creates the frustrating situation where your fate is determined, but you remain uninformed.

Timeline reality: One to three days is typical. Delays of a week or more suggest administrative backlog or journal inefficiency rather than continued editorial deliberation. This stage feels disproportionately frustrating because meaningful evaluation has concluded, but communication lags.

Timeline Variations by Academic Field

Understanding field-specific norms helps calibrate expectations based on where you’re publishing. These patterns reflect disciplinary differences in reviewer availability, review complexity, publication urgency, and journal management efficiency.

Medicine and Public Health (8 to 9 weeks median)

Medical journals operate under relatively high urgency due to the clinical implications of research findings. Large numbers of researchers in these fields create substantial reviewer pools, making reviewer recruitment easier than in smaller disciplines. Many medical journals have professionalized editorial operations with dedicated staff managing workflow efficiently.

Why medicine is faster: Patient care implications create pressure for timely publication. Large conferences and established professional networks facilitate reviewer identification. Journals in this field often have resources for paid editorial staff rather than relying entirely on volunteer labor. Review culture emphasizes rapid turnaround as a professional norm.

Typical range: Fast medical journals like PLOS Medicine or BMJ Open complete first decisions in six to eight weeks. Traditional medical society journals typically take ten to twelve weeks. Highly selective journals like NEJM or The Lancet can take longer due to multiple review rounds and high standards, sometimes reaching twelve to sixteen weeks.

Natural Sciences and Engineering (11 to 14 weeks median)

Physical sciences, chemistry, biology, and engineering occupy a middle position in review timelines. Reviewer pools are substantial, but manuscripts often require technical expertise that limits qualified reviewer availability. Experimental validation and methodological rigor demand careful evaluation that takes time.

Field-specific factors: Manuscripts in these areas often include complex methodological details requiring thorough evaluation. Reviewers must verify statistical approaches, assess experimental design rigor, and evaluate data interpretation carefully. Interdisciplinary work crossing subfield boundaries complicates reviewer recruitment.

Typical range: Fast-publishing journals like Scientific Reports or Nature Communications complete reviews in eight to ten weeks. Traditional society journals in physics, chemistry, or engineering typically take twelve to sixteen weeks. Highly specialized journals in narrow subfields may take sixteen to twenty weeks due to small expert communities.

Psychology and Social Sciences (11 to 14 weeks for psychology; 16 to 18 weeks for broader social sciences)

Psychology benefits from relatively large research communities and established journal infrastructure, leading to moderately fast timelines comparable to natural sciences. Broader social sciences, including sociology, political science, and anthropology, show slower timelines due to smaller specialized communities and more diverse methodological approaches requiring specialized reviewer expertise.

Review culture differences: These fields emphasize thorough engagement with theoretical frameworks and extensive literature review, making reviews more time-intensive. Methodological diversity means finding reviewers competent in specific approaches takes longer. Some journals in these fields maintain traditional practices with longer review periods considered normal.

Typical range: Fast psychology journals complete reviews in ten to twelve weeks. Traditional psychology journals take fourteen to eighteen weeks. Broader social science journals typically take sixteen to twenty weeks. Interdisciplinary journals bridging social sciences with humanities may take twenty to twenty-four weeks.

Economics, Business, and Mathematics (16 to 18 weeks median)

These fields show notably longer review timelines reflecting smaller specialized communities, complex technical review requirements, and traditional journal cultures that have not emphasized rapid review as a priority. The expectation in these disciplines is that thorough evaluation matters more than speed.

Why these fields are slower: Economics and business manuscripts often require reviewers with specific technical expertise in particular modeling approaches or statistical techniques, limiting qualified reviewer pools. Mathematics papers demand extremely careful verification of proofs and theoretical arguments. Traditional print-schedule journals remain common in these fields, reducing urgency for rapid decisions.

Typical range: Fast journals in these fields complete reviews in twelve to fourteen weeks, still slower than science equivalents. Traditional journals typically take sixteen to twenty-four weeks. Top-tier journals like Econometrica or leading mathematics journals may take six months or more for thorough evaluation.

Humanities (16 to 18 weeks median, often longer)

Humanities disciplines consistently show the longest peer review timelines across academic publishing. Small specialist communities make reviewer recruitment challenging. The expectation of detailed, essay-length reviews rather than structured brief reports means review completion takes longer. Many humanities journals maintain traditional quarterly publication schedules that don’t create urgency for rapid decisions.

Distinctive features: Humanities reviewers are often expected to provide extensive, engaged responses running several pages rather than brief evaluations. The small number of scholars working on particular topics or periods means that finding even two qualified reviewers can take weeks. Some humanities journals explicitly embrace slow scholarship, viewing rapid review as potentially compromising thoroughness.

Typical range: Fast humanities journals might complete first decisions in twelve to fourteen weeks. Traditional journals typically take eighteen to twenty-four weeks. Journals in highly specialized areas or those with volunteer editors juggling heavy teaching loads may take six to twelve months. Some prestigious humanities journals are notorious for year-long review processes.

Field-Specific Patterns

Faster fields share common characteristics: Large research communities providing substantial reviewer pools, professional journal management with dedicated staff, publication urgency creating pressure for rapid decisions, and cultural norms emphasizing quick turnaround.

Slower fields face common challenges: Small specialist communities where reviewer recruitment is difficult, expectation of lengthy detailed reviews rather than brief structured evaluations, traditional journal cultures that haven’t prioritized speed, and volunteer editorial operations without dedicated staff support.

Your field determines baseline expectations. A sixteen-week review period represents a concerning delay in medicine but normal processing in the humanities. Calibrate your anxiety based on disciplinary norms, not an absolute timeline.

Where to Find Journal-Specific Timeline Data

Individual journals within the same field show dramatic variation in review speed, making journal selection a critical factor in how long you’ll wait. Fortunately, most journals now publish performance metrics that allow strategic targeting based on timeline preferences.

Publisher Journal Metrics Pages

Elsevier journals display comprehensive metrics on journal homepages under “Journal Metrics” or “Journal Insights” sections. Look for “Days from submission to first decision,” which shows the median across recent manuscripts. Typical Elsevier journals show a 60-90 day turnaround, though this varies considerably. Fast Elsevier journals might take 40-50 days, while slow ones can take 100-120 days.

Springer Nature journals similarly publish “Days from submission to first decision” and “Days from acceptance to publication” on journal websites. Access these through the “Aims and Scope” section or dedicated metrics pages. Springer journals average 62-85 days to first decision across their portfolio, with significant variation between fast-publishing open-access journals and traditional society journals.

Wiley journals provide timeline metrics, though less consistently than Elsevier or Springer. Check journal homepages or “Author Guidelines” sections for published performance data. Where available, Wiley journals typically show 70-100 days to first decision.

Taylor & Francis journals publish performance metrics on journal homepages when available. This publisher shows more variation in metric availability, with some journals providing detailed data and others offering none.

Individual journal websites should be your first check regardless of the publisher. Navigate to the journal homepage and look for sections labeled “Journal Metrics,” “About the Journal,” “Performance,” or “For Authors.” The specific location varies, but most journals now recognize timeline transparency as important for author decision-making.

Interpreting Published Timeline Data

Median time to first decision represents the midpoint of recent experiences—half of manuscripts received decisions faster, half slower. This metric provides better guidance than mean averages because it’s not skewed by occasional extreme outliers.

Recent vs. historical data matters. Check when the reported timeline was calculated. Journals often display rolling 12-month metrics, making them current and reliable. Metrics calculated from older data may not reflect current performance, especially if editorial teams have changed or journals have implemented new workflows.

Desk rejection vs. peer review timelines differ significantly. Published metrics typically combine both desk rejections (fast) and peer-reviewed manuscripts (slower), potentially showing misleadingly short overall timelines. Some journals separately report “time to first decision” and “time to peer review decision,” with the latter being more relevant if you want to understand actual review duration.

Fast timelines aren’t always positive signals. Journals showing median times of 20-30 days might be desk-rejecting most submissions quickly rather than reviewing them efficiently. Check desk rejection rates when available to understand whether fast timelines reflect efficient review or high rejection without review.

Why Peer Review Takes Longer Than It Should

Understanding the structural factors that extend peer review timelines beyond ideal durations helps contextualize your waiting experience and manage expectations realistically.

The Reviewer Recruitment Bottleneck

Securing committed reviewers represents the single biggest obstacle to fast peer review. The challenge stems from fundamental dynamics that haven’t been solved despite recognition of the problem.

High decline rates create recruitment delays. Research consistently shows that 40-50% of invited reviewers decline, and some studies report decline rates exceeding 60% in certain fields. Each declined invitation requires identifying and inviting replacement reviewers, with each cycle consuming five to seven days. Securing the typical requirement of two or three reviewers often requires inviting six to eight candidates across multiple rounds.

The reviewer availability paradox compounds the problem. The most qualified reviewers are precisely the ones most heavily solicited. A leading researcher in a specialized area might receive fifty review invitations annually across multiple journals, making them increasingly likely to decline new requests. Editors seeking the best reviewers face the highest decline rates, forcing choices between waiting for ideal reviewers or accepting less qualified alternatives.

Limited reviewer databases in specialized fields create genuine scarcity. Some research areas have only dozens of qualified experts globally. When editors need three reviewers and invite ten candidates, but all decline, they face a crisis that extends timelines dramatically while they search for anyone minimally qualified.

Interdisciplinary manuscripts face multiplied recruitment challenges. A paper bridging two fields requires reviewers knowledgeable in both areas or separate reviewers for each aspect. Finding even one qualified reviewer proves difficult; finding three becomes extremely time-consuming.

Reviewer Procrastination and Non-Completion

Even when reviewers accept invitations, completion doesn’t follow promptly. The volunteer nature of peer review, combined with human psychology around unpaid labor, creates predictable delays.

The volunteer labor problem creates deprioritization. Reviewers conduct unpaid work that generates no direct professional benefit beyond goodwill. When teaching prep needs attention, student emails require responses, research grants demand revision, or administrative meetings consume afternoons, manuscript review slides to the bottom of priority lists. Reviewers intend to complete promptly, but rarely do.

Optimistic acceptance creates downstream problems. Researchers accept review invitations when they have time in the moment, not considering their schedule over the coming weeks. A reviewer accepting in October might be buried under midterm grading in November, making the promised three-week completion impossible. Rather than declining initially, they accept and then delay, extending the timeline more than if they’d declined immediately.

The “out of sight, out of mind” effect operates powerfully. Once downloaded, manuscripts often sit forgotten until reminder emails arrive weeks later. Even conscientious reviewers find that manuscripts disappear from attention amid daily professional demands. Reminder emails generate brief guilt that might prompt review completion, or might just get ignored amid other pressing matters.

Non-completion requires starting over. Some reviewers simply never complete reviews despite accepting invitations and multiple reminders. After waiting eight to twelve weeks, editors must eventually give up and recruit replacement reviewers, essentially starting the review stage from scratch. This worst-case scenario can add three to four months to timelines.

Editorial Bottlenecks and Competing Responsibilities

Academic editors serve as volunteers managing journal operations alongside their primary professional roles, creating inevitable workflow bottlenecks.

The editor workload reality means delays are structural. Associate editors might handle twenty to forty active manuscripts simultaneously while maintaining full-time positions as researchers, professors, or administrators. They evaluate manuscripts between teaching classes, writing papers, supervising students, and attending meetings. The promised rapid turnaround conflicts with the reality that editorial work is secondary to primary employment.

Editor-in-chief’s final approval adds queue time. Even after associate editors complete evaluations, manuscripts wait in the editor-in-chief review queues. These senior editors handle even higher manuscript volumes and often have the most demanding primary positions. Days or weeks can pass between an associate editor’s recommendation and the editor-in-chief’s review simply because of workload.

Academic calendars create seasonal bottlenecks. Submissions spike at certain times—semester breaks when researchers have writing time, pre-conference periods when results need publication. These spikes overwhelm editorial capacity. Summer months, winter holidays, and conference seasons slow editorial work as editors become unavailable or overextended.

Editorial transitions disrupt timelines dramatically. When editors leave positions, manuscripts orphaned during transitions can languish months before being reassigned to new editors who must start evaluation fresh. These situations are uncommon but catastrophic for affected manuscripts, sometimes adding six months to timelines.

Multiple Revision Rounds Extend Total Duration

The timeline from initial submission to final acceptance often requires multiple review rounds, with each cycle adding three to six months to the total duration.

The revision cycle timeline compounds. After receiving major revision requests, authors typically spend two to four months revising. Resubmission triggers a new review, consuming another six to twelve weeks. If reviewers request additional revisions, another round begins. Papers requiring two major revision rounds can spend eighteen to twenty-four months from initial submission to acceptance. Knowing whether revise and resubmit is worth it can help you decide how to proceed.

Incomplete revisions prompt rejection or further rounds. Authors sometimes inadequately address reviewer concerns, leading either to rejection after revision or to requests for additional revision addressing remaining issues. Each additional round extends the timeline by months.

New reviewers in subsequent rounds create complications. When original reviewers are unavailable for revised manuscript evaluation, new reviewers sometimes raise entirely new concerns, extending the revision process unpredictably.

Journal-Specific Inefficiencies

Some journals simply operate inefficiently due to inadequate resources, poor workflow design, or a lack of editorial commitment to timely processing.

Volunteer editorial operations without staff support struggle with workflow management. Small journals relying entirely on volunteer labor by busy academics inevitably process manuscripts more slowly than journals with paid editorial staff handling administrative tasks efficiently.

Outdated manuscript management systems create friction. Some journals use clunky systems that make reviewer recruitment, communication, and decision processing more time-consuming than necessary. Technical limitations extend timelines through pure inefficiency.

Low editorial priority at some journals means manuscripts sit idle. When editorial teams don’t prioritize timely processing, manuscripts simply wait longer at every stage. No individual delay seems problematic, but accumulated delays extend timelines months beyond necessity.

Print publication schedules create artificial delays. Journals publishing quarterly or even monthly sometimes hold accepted manuscripts until appropriate publication slots, extending time from acceptance to publication by months, even when editorial processing is completed efficiently.

What’s Normal vs. What’s Concerning

Distinguishing between typical delays and problematic situations helps you decide when patience is appropriate versus when inquiry or alternative action makes sense.

Normal Timeline Benchmarks by Journal Type

Fast-publishing journals (MDPI, PeerJ, Scientific Reports): 4-8 weeks to first decision is normal. Delays beyond 10 weeks suggest something went wrong, and an inquiry is reasonable.

Standard open-access journals (PLOS ONE, BMC series, Frontiers): 8-12 weeks to first decision is typical. Delays beyond 16 weeks warrant polite inquiry.

Traditional subscription journals (major publisher portfolios): 12-20 weeks to first decision is normal, depending on the field. Delays beyond 24 weeks justify inquiry, especially if no communication has occurred.

Highly selective journals (Nature, Science, Cell, top society journals): 12-24 weeks to first decision is common due to thorough evaluation and multiple rounds of editorial review. These journals often communicate timeline expectations upfront.

Specialized society journals in small fields: 16-28 weeks to first decision can be normal due to reviewer recruitment challenges in limited expert communities. Check journal-specific historical timelines if available.

When to Start Worrying

No status update for 4-6 months suggests potential problems. Even slow journals typically show some status changes or provide interim updates within this timeframe. Prolonged silence might indicate administrative issues, editorial transitions, or your manuscript being forgotten in someone’s queue.

Status remaining “Under Review” for 6+ months with no communication should prompt an inquiry. While some fields accept longer review periods, most journals should either provide updates or complete reviews within six months.

Status showing “With Editor” or “Required Reviews Complete” for 8+ weeks suggests an editorial bottleneck or decision complexity. A polite inquiry about the expected timeline is reasonable after two months in these statuses.

Journal-specific timeline promises significantly exceeded warrants inquiry. If the journal website states typical 12-week decisions but you’ve waited 20 weeks without communication, asking about your manuscript’s status is appropriate.

Status changes that don’t make sense, like reverting from “Decision in Process” to “With Editor” or moving backward through stages, suggest either technical issues or unusual editorial circumstances requiring clarification.

Red Flags Suggesting Problems

Complete lack of communication for 6+ months, combined with no status updates, suggests your manuscript might be lost in the system, editors may have left positions without reassignment, or administrative dysfunction exists.

Inquiry emails going unanswered for weeks indicate either you’re emailing the wrong addresses or the journal has serious operational problems. Follow up with the publisher’s customer service if the editorial office doesn’t respond.

Conflicting information from different editors, like one email saying the manuscript is under review while another indicates it’s awaiting editor assignment, suggests coordination problems within the editorial team.

Discovery that your handling editor left the journal months ago, but you received no notification about reassignment, indicates your manuscript fell through the cracks during the transition. Contact the editorial office immediately to ensure proper reassignment.

Other authors reporting similar extreme delays with the same journal suggest systemic issues rather than manuscript-specific circumstances. Consider withdrawing if patterns indicate widespread dysfunction.

When and How to Make a Polite Inquiry

Wait until you have cause for genuine concern. Don’t inquire after six weeks when the journal’s stated timeline is 16 weeks. But do inquire if you’ve exceeded stated timelines by 50% or more with no communication.

Email the editorial office, not individual editors, unless you’ve had direct correspondence with them. Use the addresses listed on the journal website under “Contact” or “Editorial Office.”

Keep inquiries brief and professional. State your manuscript number, submission date, current status, and politely ask about the expected timeline. Avoid expressing frustration or implying criticism.

Example inquiry template:

Subject: Status inquiry – Manuscript [number]

Dear Editorial Office,

I submitted manuscript [number] titled “[title]” on [date]. The current status shows “[status]” as of [date]. I understand editorial review requires time, and I appreciate the careful consideration.

I am writing to confirm the manuscript is progressing normally and to inquire about the expected timeline for a decision. Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards, [Your name]

Give them time to respond. Expect replies within one week, but allow up to two weeks. If no response comes after two weeks, send one polite follow-up before escalating to the publisher’s customer service.

Consider withdrawal if problems persist. If inquiries yield no useful information and timelines have extended six months or more without explanation, withdrawing and submitting elsewhere might serve your interests better than indefinite waiting.

How to Choose Journals Based on Review Timeline

Strategic journal selection balances speed with quality, impact, and fit for your research. Understanding the editorial decision process and how to find the right journal can significantly impact your publishing success.

When Speed Is Your Priority

Choose fast journals (under 60 days to first decision) if you:

• Have conference or grant deadlines approaching
• Are you building an early-career publication record
• Have time-sensitive research findings
• Need quick validation of your work

Fast journals by field:

• Biology/Medicine: PLOS ONE (29 days), PeerJ (35 days), Scientific Reports (40 days), BMC Series (45 days)
• Physical Sciences: Nature Communications (21 days), Scientific Reports (40 days), MDPI journals (28 days)
• Engineering: IEEE Access, MDPI Sensors/Electronics (28 days)
• Social Sciences: Frontiers series (42 days), PLOS ONE (29 days)
• Multidisciplinary: MDPI journals (28 days), F1000Research

When Quality/Prestige Matters More

Accept longer timelines (90-180 days) if you:

• Have groundbreaking results worth waiting for a top-tier publication
• Need prestige for tenure or promotion decisions
• Have no immediate deadlines
• Value a thorough, detailed peer review over speed

Top-tier journals worth the wait:

• Nature, Science, Cell (if your work truly fits their scope)
• Field-specific leaders (Nature Medicine, Neuron, Journal of Finance, PNAS)
• Prestigious society journals with established reputations

Finding the Balance

Check published metrics:

1. Visit journal website → “Journal Metrics” or “About” section
2. Look for “Time to First Decision” or “Review Speed” data
3. Verify the data is recent (last 12 months preferred)
4. Compare with field averages from the table above

Evaluate why journals are fast:

• ✅ Good signs: Efficient editorial processes, professional staff, large active reviewer databases, continuous publication models
• ❌ Red flags: High desk rejection rates (fast because most aren’t reviewed), predatory practices, superficial review

Strategic approach for most researchers:

1. Submit your best work to prestigious journals first (if realistic chance of acceptance)
2. Set a withdrawal deadline (e.g., “If no decision in 90 days, I’ll withdraw and resubmit”)
3. Have 3-5 backup journals ranked by both priority and timeline
4. Post preprints to establish priority and gain visibility while waiting
5. Consider what to do after manuscript rejection before you even submit

Avoid predatory journals advertising unrealistic speed:

• Peer review promised in under 1 week
• Guaranteed acceptance with “peer review.”
• Acceptance fees disclosed before review completion
• No clear information about who conducts the review
• Poor website quality or unprofessional communication

Legitimate rigorous review requires a minimum of 21-30 days, even for the fastest legitimate journals.

Strategic Approaches for Time-Sensitive Research

Preprint deposition allows you to establish priority and make findings public while peer review proceeds. Submit to bioRxiv, arXiv, SSRN, or discipline-specific preprint servers immediately, then pursue formal publication without concern about timeline, since your work is already public and citable.

Fast-track options: Some journals accelerate review for particularly urgent research—pandemic-related work, urgent public health findings, or other time-sensitive contributions when authors explicitly request fast-track consideration. These options sometimes involve additional fees.

Post-publication peer review journals like F1000Research publish manuscripts immediately and conduct peer review after publication. This inverts the traditional model, eliminating pre-publication waiting entirely while still providing peer validation.

Split findings across multiple papers if your research supports it. Rather than waiting for one comprehensive paper to complete a slow review, publish initial findings in a faster journal while developing a detailed analysis for a slower submission elsewhere.

What to Do While Waiting for Review

Productive use of the waiting period transforms anxious time into professional advancement, ensuring that regardless of the eventual decision, the months spent in review contribute to your research progress.

Advance Your Next Project

The healthiest response to submission anxiety involves maintaining multiple research streams so no single manuscript determines your productivity or emotional state. Use review waiting time to:

• Make substantial progress on your next paper
• Analyze data from ongoing studies that will become future manuscripts
• Develop new research proposals while ideas are fresh
• Write review papers synthesizing your area of expertise
• Apply for grants to fund follow-up studies

Researchers who maintain robust pipelines don’t experience individual submission decisions as career-defining moments because they always have work advancing through various stages. The anxiety surrounding any single manuscript diminishes when you’re simultaneously making progress on two or three other projects.

Prepare for Possible Revision

If the decision leads to a revision opportunity, responding quickly and thoroughly improves your chances of eventual acceptance. Understanding types of journal decisions helps you prepare appropriate responses.

Use waiting time to:

• Review your manuscript with fresh eyes, identifying potential weaknesses before reviewers point them out
• Reread recent literature to ensure citations remain comprehensive and current
• Consider what additional analyses or discussions might strengthen your contribution
• Prepare template responses for common reviewer concerns in your field
• Practice diplomatic language for responding to reviewers if you anticipate disagreements

This preparation means that when reviewer comments arrive, you can focus immediately on specific concerns rather than general manuscript improvement. You’ll respond faster because you’ve already refreshed familiarity with the work, and you’ll respond better because you’ve anticipated some concerns and have solutions ready.

Identify Alternative Target Journals

If you receive rejection, you’ll want to resubmit quickly to maintain publication momentum. Use the waiting period to:

• Identify three to five alternative journals where your work fits appropriately
• Don’t just list “next journals down” in prestige—find venues where your topic, methodology, and contribution level genuinely match recent publications
• Read recent issues from these alternatives, noting how similar work is framed
• Prepare draft cover letters tailored to each venue, ready to customize based on feedback
• Note each journal’s submission requirements and formatting guidelines

This preparation means rejection leads to immediate strategic resubmission rather than starting journal selection from scratch, potentially saving weeks or months in your overall publication timeline.

Build Your Professional Network

Attend conferences, present your research, and engage with scholars working in related areas. These activities both advance your broader research agenda and create opportunities for feedback on work under review. Conversations with colleagues sometimes reveal insights about journals, editors, or review practices that inform your future submission strategies.

Professional networking also provides emotional support during the waiting process. Commiserating with colleagues facing similar delays normalizes the experience and reduces the sense of isolation that submission anxiety creates.

Work on Other Professional Development

Use the time for activities that long-term benefit your career:

• Develop new research skills or learn new analytical techniques
• Write grant proposals for future projects
• Mentor students or junior colleagues
• Engage in service activities that build professional reputation
• Work on public engagement or outreach related to your research
• Update your CV, website, or professional profiles

These investments in professional development ensure that the time spent waiting for one manuscript review contributes to your overall career progress rather than feeling like wasted time.

What NOT to Do While Waiting

• Don’t obsessively check submission portals multiple times daily—set a weekly schedule for status checks
• Don’t email editors asking for updates before the stated timeline has been exceeded
• Don’t submit the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously (this violates publishing ethics)
• Don’t let anxiety about one paper stop your research progress on other projects
• Don’t ignore other professional development opportunities while waiting
• Don’t complain publicly on social media about review delays (it’s unprofessional and journals notice)

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How long does peer review take at PLOS ONE?

PLOS ONE’s median time to first decision is 29 days. After revisions, the second round typically takes 2-3 weeks, with total publication time averaging 45-60 days for manuscripts without major revisions.

Q: What is PeerJ’s average review time?

PeerJ’s median time to first decision is 35 days, including a 2-4 day initial check, 3-7 days for editor assignment, and 14-28 days for peer review. Articles are published within 2-3 weeks after acceptance.

Q: Which journals have the fastest peer review?

The fastest legitimate peer-reviewed journals include eLife (15 days), Nature Communications (21 days), PLOS ONE (29 days), MDPI journals (28 days), and PeerJ (35 days). Be cautious of journals promising review in under two weeks, as this may indicate superficial review.

Q: How long does the Journal of Emerging Investigators take to review?

Journal of Emerging Investigators typically takes 6-8 weeks for initial review and 2-3 weeks for subsequent rounds, with total time from submission to publication averaging 10-14 weeks.

Q: Does peer review time vary by academic field?

Yes. Medical journals average 8-9 weeks, natural sciences 11-14 weeks, social sciences 16-18 weeks, and humanities 16-18+ weeks. The variation reflects reviewer availability and review complexity differences across disciplines.

Q: Why does peer review take so long?

Main factors include difficulty finding reviewers (40-50% decline in invitations), reviewer workload (unpaid volunteers with full-time jobs), thoroughness requirements (3-6 hours per manuscript), multiple revision rounds, and editorial decision-making complexity.

Q: Can I speed up the peer review process?

Submit polished manuscripts to reduce revision rounds, suggest qualified reviewers, respond quickly to revision requests, follow formatting guidelines precisely, and choose journals appropriate for your work’s scope and quality.

Q: What happens if peer review takes longer than expected?

Wait 2 weeks beyond the journal’s stated timeline before inquiring. Email the editorial office politely with your manuscript number and submission date, asking for a status update. Most delays result from reviewer unavailability rather than manuscript problems.

Q: Is faster peer review lower quality?

Not necessarily. Many journals achieve speed through efficient processes, professional editorial management, large reviewer pools, and clear evaluation criteria. However, be cautious of journals promising review in under 2 weeks—a legitimate, thorough review requires at least 21-30 days.

Q: How does open access affect review time?

Open access journals often review faster because they aren’t constrained by print schedules, use continuous publication models, have larger editorial staff funded by article processing charges, and maintain more transparent, streamlined processes.

Q: What’s the difference between time to decision and time to publication?

Time to first decision measures from submission to initial accept/reject/revise decision (median: 30-90 days). Time to publication measures from final acceptance to online appearance (typically 2-8 weeks for open access, 2-6 months for subscription journals). Total timeline from initial submission through revisions to publication typically spans 3-9 months.

Conclusion

Peer review timelines are just one factor in the complex decision of where to publish your research. While it’s tempting to always choose the fastest option, the best strategy balances speed with impact, audience reach, and the quality of peer review you’ll receive.

For time-sensitive work or early-career researchers building publication records, journals like PLOS ONE (29 days), PeerJ (35 days), and eLife (15 days) offer legitimate, rigorous review with reasonable timelines. For groundbreaking work, the longer wait for selective journals may be worthwhile for the prestige and visibility they provide.

Key Takeaways

• Median peer review time across all fields is 45-60 days to first decision
• Open access journals typically review faster than subscription journals
• Your field matters: medical research moves faster than the humanities
• A fast review doesn’t mean low quality if the journal is reputable
• You can influence the timeline through manuscript quality and responsive revisions
• Understanding journal decision statuses helps you interpret where your manuscript stands

Your Next Steps

1. Use the journal comparison table above to identify appropriate targets for your work
2. Check specific journal websites for their most recent timeline data
3. Consider posting a preprint while waiting for peer review
4. Plan your submission strategy with backup journals ranked by priority
5. Prepare for all possible outcomes by understanding different types of decisions

The peer review process, while sometimes frustrating, remains the foundation of scientific quality control. Understanding typical timelines helps you plan effectively and maintain realistic expectations throughout your publishing journey.

Have you experienced significantly different review times at these journals? The data in this guide reflects median times, but individual experiences vary. Consider sharing your timeline data on platforms like Academic Tracker to help other researchers plan their submissions.

About the Author

This guide was written by Dr. James Richardson, a research engineer with experience in academic publishing and peer review across multiple journals. The insights on review timelines reflect both author experiences waiting for editorial decisions and reviewer perspectives on why completion takes longer than everyone hopes.

Questions about your manuscript’s timeline? Leave a comment below.

Last Updated: January 2026 | Next Update: April 2026

This guide is updated quarterly with the latest peer review timeline data. Bookmark this page for future reference when planning your manuscript submissions.