“Under Review” Status: What’s Happening & How Long (2026)

Your manuscript status changes to “Under Review” and suddenly, time slows to a crawl. Days turn into weeks with no visible progress, no communication, no indication whether reviewers are actively working, or your paper sits forgotten in someone’s queue. You refresh the submission portal daily, hoping for any change that might signal forward movement. The anxiety builds because this status reveals almost nothing about what’s actually happening behind the scenes.

The “Under Review” phase represents one of the longest and least transparent stages of academic publishing. Unlike earlier stages where status changes signal clear progress—from submission to editor assignment to reviewer invitation—the review period shows static status for weeks while critical evaluation proceeds invisibly. Understanding what this status means, what reviewers are actually doing, and how long the process typically takes transforms anxious uncertainty into informed patience.

As a research engineer who has both waited through this status as an author and worked as a reviewer evaluating manuscripts, I can explain what happens during this seemingly endless phase, why it takes as long as it does, and when you should start worrying versus accepting normal timelines. Understanding how long peer review takes helps set realistic expectations for the “Under Review” phase.

Quick Answer: What “Under Review” Means and How Long It Takes

Status meaning: Your manuscript is actively being evaluated by external peer reviewers who have accepted invitations and are reading, assessing, and writing detailed comments on your work.

Typical timeline: 2 to 8 weeks in most fields, though substantial variation exists. Fast scenarios complete in 2 to 4 weeks. Standard scenarios take 4 to 8 weeks. Slow scenarios extend to 8 to 12 weeks or longer.

What you should do: Wait patiently while working on other projects. Inquire politely if the status persists unchanged for 8-10 weeks with no communication, or if your journal’s stated timeline is significantly exceeded.

What happens next: Status will eventually change to “Reviews Complete,” “Required Reviews Completed,” “Awaiting Reviewer Scores,” or “Decision in Process,” followed by editorial decision communication within days to weeks.

The range reflects genuine variability in reviewer workload, manuscript complexity, field norms, and journal efficiency. Your experience will fall somewhere within this spectrum based on factors largely outside your control.

What “Under Review” Status Actually Means

Understanding the precise meaning requires recognizing that journal systems use terminology differently, creating potential confusion about what stage your manuscript occupies.

The Primary Meaning

At most journals, “Under Review” indicates that your manuscript has successfully passed initial editorial screening and has been assigned to external peer reviewers who have accepted invitations to evaluate your work. These reviewers now have your manuscript and are conducting the detailed evaluation that will inform the editorial decision.

This status confirms several positive things: your manuscript met basic quality and scope thresholds during editorial screening, editors deemed it worthy of consuming valuable reviewer time, qualified reviewers were successfully recruited and agreed to evaluate your work, and the formal peer review process is actively underway rather than your paper sitting unexamined.

Publisher and Journal Variations

Unfortunately, manuscript status terminology is not standardized across publishers—or even across journals from the same publisher. Labels such as “Under Review” can mean very different things depending on the manuscript management system a journal uses and how editors configure those status stages. As a result, authors often misinterpret what is actually happening behind the scenes.

To better understand what review really involves, it helps to look at the formal responsibilities and expectations of peer reviewers. Resources like the Publons Academy (now part of Web of Science) provide an authoritative overview of how reviewers are selected, what they are asked to evaluate, and how the peer review process operates in practice

Elsevier journals using Editorial Manager typically use “Under Review” to indicate active peer review by external reviewers. This represents a later stage than “With Editor” which signals editorial evaluation before reviewer assignment.

Springer journals similarly use “Under Review” for the external peer review phase, distinct from earlier stages like “Editor Assigned” or “Reviewers Invited.”

Some journals use “Under Review” more broadly to encompass both editorial screening and external review, making it impossible to distinguish between phases based on status alone.

Other journals distinguish “Under Review” (editorial screening) from “Under Peer Review” or “With Reviewers” (external evaluation), providing more granular information about manuscript location in the workflow.

This inconsistency means you should check your specific journal’s status definitions if they’re documented on the journal website or in author guidelines. Without journal-specific information, assume “Under Review” most likely means external reviewers are evaluating your work.

What Reviewers Are Actually Doing

When your status shows “Under Review,” accepted reviewers are working through a multi-step evaluation process that takes considerable time even for conscientious reviewers. Reviewers evaluate your work using criteria similar to those editors use when making final decisions.

Reading the entire manuscript thoroughly consumes 2 to 4 hours for typical papers, more for lengthy manuscripts or highly technical work. Reviewers can’t skim—they must engage carefully with your introduction, methods, results, and discussion to provide meaningful evaluation.

Evaluating methodology rigorously requires checking whether your research design addresses your questions appropriately, whether controls are adequate, whether statistical analyses are correct and properly justified, whether you’ve acknowledged limitations honestly, and whether alternative explanations have been ruled out adequately.

Assessing results and conclusions critically involves verifying that data support the claims you make, checking whether figures and tables communicate information clearly, identifying overstatements or unsupported conclusions, and evaluating whether you’ve acknowledged contradictory findings or alternative interpretations.

Writing detailed comments takes 1 to 3 hours as reviewers document their assessment for both editors and authors. Good reviewers provide specific feedback with clear justification rather than vague criticism, constructive suggestions for improvement rather than mere criticism, and balanced evaluation acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses.

Making recommendations about publication requires weighing all factors and deciding whether to recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection, with justification for that recommendation explained to editors.

This entire process, completed conscientiously, requires 4 to 8 hours of focused work that busy academics must fit around teaching, research, administrative duties, and personal lives. The work is volunteer labor generating no direct professional benefit beyond goodwill, making it inevitably deprioritized relative to paid responsibilities.

Timeline Expectations: How Long “Under Review” Typically Lasts

After “Under Review” completes, your status will change to
“Decision in Process” as editors formulate their decision. This is broadly explained by the types of journal under consideration.

By Journal Type and Field

STEM journals (natural sciences, engineering, medicine): 3 to 8 weeks typical, with fast journals completing in 2 to 4 weeks and slower journals taking 6 to 10 weeks.

Social science journals (psychology, sociology, economics): 4 to 10 weeks typical, with fast scenarios at 4 to 6 weeks and slow scenarios reaching 8 to 12 weeks.

Humanities journals (literature, history, philosophy): 6 to 16 weeks typical, reflecting smaller reviewer pools and expectations of longer, more detailed reviews.

Fast-track journals (MDPI, PeerJ, Frontiers): 2 to 4 weeks typical, with some completing initial reviews in 10 to 14 days.

Traditional society journals: 6 to 12 weeks typical, sometimes extending to 16 weeks in specialized fields with limited reviewer availability.

These ranges represent the middle of typical experiences. Your manuscript might move faster or slower based on specific circumstances, but these benchmarks help calibrate expectations.

What Causes Delays During Review

Reviewer workload and competing priorities represent the primary delay factor. Academics juggle teaching, research, service, and personal responsibilities, with manuscript review as unpaid voluntary work inevitably sliding down priority lists. A reviewer might intend to complete within two weeks but actually finish after six weeks when other urgent matters finally clear.

Waiting for all reviewers to complete creates coordination delays. Journals typically send manuscripts to two or three reviewers. If one completes promptly but another takes eight weeks, the editor must wait for all reviews before proceeding. The slowest reviewer determines the timeline, and editors typically wait several weeks past requested deadlines before seeking replacement reviewers.

Reviewer dropout requiring replacement extends timelines dramatically. When reviewers accept invitations but then fail to complete reviews despite reminders, editors eventually must recruit and invite replacement reviewers, essentially restarting the review phase and adding four to eight weeks to the timeline.

Manuscript length and complexity affect how long reviewers need. A 20-page manuscript with straightforward methodology might be reviewed in half the time required for a 60-page manuscript with complex statistical analyses, extensive supplementary materials, or highly technical content requiring careful verification.

Holiday periods and academic cycles create seasonal delays. Summer months when academics travel, December holidays, conference seasons when researchers are away, and semester starts when teaching demands peak all slow review completion as reviewers struggle to find time amid other commitments.

When to Worry and When to Wait Patiently

Normal Timelines (Don’t Worry)

2 to 6 weeks: Completely normal across most fields and journals. This represents typical time for reviewers to find time, read manuscripts carefully, and write thoughtful comments.

6 to 8 weeks: Still within normal range, especially for complex manuscripts, humanities fields, or journals known for thorough review.

Over holiday periods or summer: Add 2 to 4 weeks to your expectations. Reviews submitted in June often take longer than those submitted in October.

Extended Timelines (Consider Inquiry)

8 to 10 weeks: Approaching the point where polite inquiry becomes reasonable, especially if your journal’s website states shorter expected timelines.

10 to 12 weeks: Definitely appropriate to inquire, particularly if you’ve received no interim communication from the editorial office.

12+ weeks: Something may have gone wrong—reviewer dropout, editorial transitions, administrative issues, or simply slow processing. Inquiry is warranted.

Very Long Timelines (Escalate)

16+ weeks: This represents a concerning delay, suggesting problems rather than normal processing. Contact the editorial office again if the initial inquiry yielded no useful information.

20+ weeks: At this point, consider whether continuing to wait serves your interests. Withdrawing and submitting elsewhere might be more productive than indefinite waiting.

24+ weeks: Definitely consider withdrawal unless the journal has provided a compelling explanation for the extraordinary delay and a firm timeline for resolution.

How to Inquire About Status Professionally

When to Contact the Editor

Wait until at least 8 weeks have passed since the status changed to “Under Review,” or until your journal’s stated timeline has been exceeded by 50% or more. Premature inquiries waste editorial time and mark you as impatient without yielding useful information.

Email Template

Subject: Status inquiry – Manuscript [ID Number]

Dear Editorial Office,

I submitted a manuscript [ID] titled “[Title]” on [date]. The status has shown “Under Review” since [date], approximately [X] weeks ago.

I understand peer review requires time for thorough evaluation, and I appreciate reviewers’ volunteer efforts. I am writing to confirm that the manuscript is progressing normally and to inquire whether you can provide an expected timeline for a decision.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards, [Your name]

What to Expect

Editors will check reviewer progress and may discover that one reviewer hasn’t started or has forgotten, prompting them to send a reminder or invite a replacement. They’ll provide a timeline estimate if possible, though often with caveats about reviewer unpredictability. Response might take several days as the editorial staff coordinates information. In some cases, you’ll receive a decision shortly after inquiry as your email prompted editor action.

What You Should Do While Waiting

Productive Activities

Start your next manuscript rather than waiting idly. Maintaining multiple projects in progress insulates you from anxiety about any single submission.

Prepare for possible revision by reviewing your manuscript with fresh eyes and anticipating potential reviewer concerns. Prepare your response strategy by reading our comprehensive guide on how to respond to peer review comments.

Research alternative journals as a backup plan if the decision is rejected, so you can resubmit quickly.

Work on other professional development, including grant proposals, conference presentations, or mentoring activities.

Don’t Do This

Check the portal constantly – it won’t speed the process and amplifies anxiety unnecessarily.

Email editor frequently – multiple inquiries within short periods annoy the editorial staff without helping your manuscript.

Assume bad news from delay – long review doesn’t predict rejection; it just reflects reviewer workload.

Put career on hold – continue other work rather than waiting for this one decision.

What Happens After “Under Review”

Next Status Changes

“Reviews Complete,” “Required Reviews Completed,” or “Awaiting Reviewer Scores” indicate reviewers have submitted reports and manuscript returns to the editor for decision. The decision will typically be major revision, minor revision, or one of several other outcomes we explore in our guide on why journals reject manuscripts.

“Decision in Process” means the editor is formulating a final decision based on reviews.

“With Editor” sometimes appears between stages as the editor evaluates reviews.

Then Final Decision

Within 3 to 14 days after reviews are complete, you’ll receive one of these decisions: Accept (rare), Minor Revision, Major Revision, Revise & Resubmit, or Rejection.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is 3 months normal? Twelve weeks falls at the long end of normal for most fields. It’s concerning but not unprecedented, especially in humanities or small, specialized fields. Inquiry is appropriate at this point.

What if the status hasn’t changed in 2 months? Eight weeks warrants polite inquiry to the editorial office. The status might not update even while progress occurs, or there might be delays worth investigating.

Can I contact reviewers directly? No. All communication must go through the editorial office. Reviewers’ identities are typically confidential, and direct contact would violate peer review protocols.

Does a long review mean rejection? No correlation exists between review duration and decision outcome. Acceptances and rejections both emerge after long reviews.

Can I withdraw while under review? Yes, though consider whether withdrawal serves your interests. You lose time invested, but free yourself to submit elsewhere. Check the journal policy on withdrawal and resubmission.

Key Takeaway

“Under Review” means your manuscript is being actively evaluated by external peer reviewers, a process typically lasting 2 to 8 weeks but sometimes extending to 12+ weeks based on reviewer availability and workload. The status reveals little about decision direction—only that evaluation continues. Patience serves you better than anxiety, though polite inquiry becomes appropriate after 8 to 10 weeks. Use the waiting time productively on other projects rather than obsessive portal checking.

About the Author

This guide was written by Dr. James Richardson, a research engineer with experience navigating peer review from both author and reviewer perspectives. The insights reflect an understanding of what actually happens during the review phase and why timelines extend as they do.

Questions about your manuscript status? Leave a comment below.

Last updated: January 2026