Decision in Process in Editorial Manager: What It Means & How Long It Takes

When your journal submission status changes to “Decision in Process,” the natural response is immediate anxiety about what this means. Authors scan online forums, compare experiences with colleagues, and refresh their submission portals, hoping for clarity. The uncertainty stems from a simple reality: this status sits between evaluation and outcome, revealing nothing definite about your manuscript’s fate.

Contrary to common assumptions among anxious authors, “Decision in Process” does not automatically mean rejection—and it doesn’t guarantee acceptance either. Instead, it signals that your manuscript has reached a critical editorial decision stage where the editorial team has moved beyond review and evaluation phases and is now finalizing their decision.

Understanding this status helps you interpret what’s happening behind the scenes, manage expectations realistically, and prepare for possible next steps ranging from revision requests to outcomes. As someone who has experienced this status from both author and reviewer perspectives, I can explain what actually happens during this phase and what it means for your manuscript.

In This Guide:

• What “Decision in Process” Actually Means
• How Long Does It Take?
• Editorial Workflow Behind This Status
• Status Meanings Quick Reference
• When to Contact the Editor
• What to Do While Waiting
• FAQ

Editorial Manager Status Quick Reference

Before diving into “Decision in Process” specifically, here’s how this status fits into Editorial Manager’s workflow:

Table: Common Editorial Manager Status Labels

Note: Different publishers use slightly different terminology, but the underlying process is consistent. Springer journals might say “Editor Decision Started” instead of “Decision in Process” – these mean the same thing.

What “Decision in Process” Actually Means

At its most basic level, “Decision in Process” indicates that the editorial team—typically led by an Associate Editor and reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or editorial board—is formulating the final decision on your manuscript. This status typically appears after one of two distinct scenarios, each with different implications. Before reaching “Decision in Process,” your manuscript typically spends weeks in “Under Review” status while reviewers evaluate your work.

Scenario 1: After Peer Review Completion

The most common pathway leading to “Decision in Process” involves completed external peer review. Reviewers have submitted their reports, the handling editor has evaluated them, and the manuscript moves into decision formulation. In this scenario, the Associate Editor has synthesized reviewer feedback, assessed whether concerns are addressable, and formed a recommendation about the manuscript’s fate.

What happens during this phase involves careful consideration of multiple factors. The editor weighs whether reviewer recommendations align or conflict, assesses whether identified problems are fixable through revision, evaluates whether the manuscript’s contribution justifies publication in the journal, and considers strategic fit with recent and upcoming publications. This synthesis process takes time because editors don’t simply count reviewer votes—they exercise scholarly judgment about what the reviews actually mean for the manuscript’s future.

The status appearing after peer review generally indicates serious consideration rather than summary dismissal. Editors investing time in deliberation suggests they see potential, even if significant revision will be required. However, it can also precede rejection when reviews reveal fundamental problems that revision cannot fix. The status itself remains neutral about the outcome.

Scenario 2: After Editorial Evaluation Without External Review

In some cases, particularly during initial screening, editors may decide not to send manuscripts for external review and instead evaluate them internally. For journals using this workflow, “Decision in Process” may appear before review when the Associate Editor determines that the manuscript doesn’t warrant external evaluation, often due to scope mismatch or insufficient contribution for that venue.

This scenario typically occurs faster than the post-review pathway. If “Decision in Process” appears within days or a couple weeks of submission without your status ever showing “Under Review” or “With Reviewers,” this pattern suggests editorial decision without external input. The outcome in these cases leans toward desk rejection or recommendation to submit elsewhere, though exceptions exist.

Understanding which scenario applies to your submission requires checking how long the manuscript has been in the system and what statuses preceded “Decision in Process.” Timeline and status sequence reveal more than the current status alone.

How Long Does “Decision in Process” Typically Take?

One of the most common questions authors ask is: “How long will my manuscript stay in this status?”

Quick Answer: Most manuscripts remain in “Decision in Process” for 1-4 weeks, though this varies based on several factors.

Timeline by Scenario

Fast Track (1-2 weeks):

• Clear reviewer consensus (all accept or all reject)
• Straightforward decision with no complications
• Light editorial workload period
• No conflicting reports requiring resolution

Standard Timeline (2-3 weeks):

• Moderate reviewer disagreement requiring editor synthesis
• Holiday periods or conference seasons
• Normal editorial workload
• Standard administrative processing time

Extended Timeline (3-4 weeks):

• Significant reviewer conflicts requiring additional consultation
• Borderline manuscripts near acceptance threshold
• Editorial board consultation needed
• Multiple layers of editorial review (common at top-tier journals)

Unusually Long (5+ weeks):

• Red flag territory – something unusual is happening
• May indicate: editorial transitions, missing information, or administrative delays
• Appropriate to send polite inquiry after 4 weeks

Table: Timeline Factors

Why Your Timeline Might Differ

Even within the same journal, individual manuscripts experience different timelines based on:

• Complexity of your research – interdisciplinary work takes longer to evaluate
• Clarity of reviewer feedback – ambiguous reviews require more editor deliberation
• Strategic considerations – some manuscripts need careful positioning within the journal’s publication mix
• Editor workload – decision timing depends on editor’s other professional responsibilities

The key insight: Timeline length doesn’t predict outcome quality. Both acceptances and rejections can take 1 week or 6 weeks, depending on circumstances unrelated to manuscript merit.

The Editorial Workflow Behind This Status

What actually happens behind the scenes when your submission shows “Decision in Process” involves several deliberate steps that explain why this phase takes time and why the status provides limited information to authors.

Step 1: The Associate Editor Synthesizes All Inputs

The handling editor conducting the primary evaluation reads through multiple information sources to form their assessment. They review all reviewer comments if peer review occurred, examining both the recommendations and the detailed feedback. They consider manuscript revisions if this represents a resubmission, comparing current and previous versions. They evaluate responses to reviewer comments from earlier rounds, assessing whether authors adequately addressed concerns. They reassess overall fit with the journal’s scope, particularly if questions about appropriateness emerged during review.

This synthesis requires scholarly judgment because reviewers often disagree, feedback quality varies considerably, and the editor must determine what concerns truly matter versus what represents individual reviewer preferences. The process isn’t mechanical aggregation but a thoughtful interpretation of what external evaluation means for this specific manuscript.

Editors at this stage ask themselves critical questions: Do the reviewers’ concerns reflect fundamental flaws or communication issues that revision can address? Does the manuscript advance knowledge sufficiently for our journal’s standards? Can the authors realistically address reviewer concerns within a reasonable revision timeframe? Would our readers find this work valuable enough to justify publication? These questions take time to answer thoughtfully.

Step 2: Recommendation Proceeds to Final Authority

Once the Associate Editor forms their assessment, they forward a recommendation to the final decision-maker, typically the Editor-in-Chief or an editorial committee. This step exists because journals maintain quality control through hierarchical oversight. Associate Editors handle day-to-day manuscript management, but ultimate publishing decisions rest with senior editorial leadership.

The recommendation includes the Associate Editor’s assessment, summary of reviewer feedback, evaluation of author responses if relevant, and suggested decision outcome with justification. The Editor-in-Chief reviews this package to ensure consistency with journal standards, verify that the recommendation follows from the evidence, check for any concerns the Associate Editor might have missed, and confirm strategic fit with the journal’s publication priorities.

In straightforward cases where reviewer consensus aligns with clear manuscript quality, this step proceeds quickly. The Editor-in-Chief confirms the recommendation, and the decision moves to communication. In complex cases involving conflicting reviews, borderline contributions, or scope questions, additional deliberation occurs. The Editor-in-Chief might request additional reviewer input, consult other editorial board members, or take time to personally evaluate the manuscript before deciding.

Step 3: Formal Decision Entry and Communication Preparation

The final step involves administrative actions that seem simple but take time in journal workflows. The decision must be formally entered into the manuscript management system, the appropriate decision letter template must be selected and customized if needed, reviewer comments must be formatted for author communication, and any special instructions for revision must be drafted and approved.

This phase explains why “Decision in Process” can persist for days or even weeks after the actual decision has been made. The decision might be determined, but system entry, quality checking of communication materials, and coordination with journal staff to send notifications all take time. Large journals processing hundreds of manuscripts monthly can experience delays simply from workflow volume.

The status remains “Decision in Process” until the communication goes out to authors, even though the editorial decision itself may have been finalized days earlier. This gap between decision and communication creates the frustrating situation where your manuscript’s fate is determined, but you remain in informational limbo.

What This Status Doesn’t Definitively Indicate

Understanding the limitations of what “Decision in Process” reveals helps manage expectations and reduce anxiety during this waiting period.

Not a Guaranteed Rejection

The most common misconception treats this status as a rejection signal, particularly when it appears quickly or without preceding revision opportunities. In reality, the status precedes multiple possible outcomes, including acceptance (rare but possible), minor revision (fairly common), major revision or revise-and-resubmit (very common), recommendation to submit elsewhere (moderately common), and rejection (also common but not guaranteed).

The statistical distribution of outcomes following “Decision in Process” varies by journal, field, and manuscript quality, but rejection represents only one possibility among several. Treating the status as rejection confirmation creates unnecessary stress and prevents productive preparation for other possible outcomes, like revision opportunities.

Authors who have experienced this status across multiple submissions report eventual outcomes spanning the full spectrum. Some manuscripts showing “Decision in Process” within two weeks of submission received major revision invitations. Others remaining in this status for six weeks were ultimately accepted with minor changes. The status itself predicts nothing definitive about direction.

Not Always a Desk Rejection Signal

Although some journals, particularly those in certain publisher families, may show “Decision in Process” when desk rejection is imminent, this represents one possible workflow pattern rather than universal practice. Journal systems vary in how they label editorial stages, when they update status displays, and what internal workflow steps trigger visible status changes.

Some systems update to “Decision in Process” only when formal rejection letters are being prepared, creating a correlation between this status and negative outcomes at those specific journals. Other systems use the same status label for all decisions regardless of outcome, making it a neutral indicator. Without knowing the specific journal’s workflow conventions, you cannot interpret the status as predicting desk rejection.

The timing context matters more than the status label itself. If “Decision in Process” appears within days of submission without your manuscript ever showing review-related statuses, desk rejection becomes more likely but remains uncertain. If it appears after months of peer review, it more likely reflects post-review deliberation than screening-stage rejection.

Not an Indicator of Decision Timeline

Authors often hope that “Decision in Process” appearing means decision communication will follow quickly, perhaps within days. This assumption proves unreliable. The actual duration manuscripts remain in this status varies enormously based on factors that authors cannot observe.

A few days represents the fastest scenario, occurring when editorial workload is light, the decision is straightforward, and administrative processing happens efficiently. Several weeks occur commonly in large journals where Editor-in-Chief review proceeds through queues, when editorial boards meet periodically to discuss decisions, or when journals process high submission volumes.

Occasionally, the status may even revert to previous stages like “With Editor,” if additional information or reviews become necessary. This backward movement in status creates confusion but reflects normal editorial practice when decision-makers determine they need more input before finalizing outcomes.

Real experiences shared in academic forums and through institutional repositories document cases where “Decision in Process” lasted three days before acceptance notification, two weeks before major revision invitation, six weeks before rejection, and even three months before any communication due to editorial transitions or administrative delays. The status duration itself reveals nothing reliable about what decision is coming.

Why This Phase Takes Longer Than Authors Expect

The persistence of “Decision in Process” status for weeks often frustrates authors who assume that once reviews are complete, decisions should be immediate. Understanding the practical realities of academic editing explains these delays.

Editorial Workload and Competing Responsibilities

Academic editors typically serve in these roles as secondary responsibilities alongside primary positions as researchers, professors, or administrators. They handle manuscript decisions between teaching classes, conducting their own research, writing grant proposals, and managing institutional responsibilities. The Editor-in-Chief reviewing Associate Editor recommendations might handle dozens of manuscripts weekly while maintaining their primary professional obligations.

This reality means decision review happens in available time slots rather than immediately upon Associate Editor recommendation submission. An Editor-in-Chief might receive the recommendation on Monday but not review it until the following week due to conference travel, teaching demands, or research deadlines. From the author perspective, this appears as unexplained delay. From the editorial perspective, it reflects normal workload management.

Deliberation Requirements for Complex Cases

Not all manuscripts receive straightforward decisions where reviewer consensus and manuscript quality align clearly. Complex cases requiring extended deliberation include situations where reviewers strongly disagree about manuscript merit, when contribution level falls near the journal’s acceptance threshold, when scope fit remains ambiguous after review, when ethical or methodological concerns emerge that require careful evaluation, or when strategic publication considerations influence timing or priority.

These complex cases cannot be rushed without risking poor decisions. Editors must weigh multiple factors carefully, possibly consult additional editorial board members, and sometimes seek supplementary reviewer opinions. The deliberation takes as long as necessary to reach defensible conclusions, regardless of author’s anxiety about the timeline.

Administrative and System Processing Time

Even after the editorial decision is made, administrative steps introduce additional delay. The decision must be entered correctly in the manuscript management system with appropriate codes and routing. Decision letters must be drafted, reviewed for clarity and completeness, and potentially customized beyond template language. Reviewer comments must be formatted properly for author communication, removing any confidential portions. Any special instructions for revision must be drafted clearly to prevent author confusion.

These administrative tasks, while individually quick, accumulate across the hundreds of manuscripts large journals process. Staff coordination, quality checking, and system limitations all contribute to the gap between decision finalization and author notification. The status remains “Decision in Process” throughout this administrative phase even though the substantive decision is complete.

Timeline Expectations: What’s Normal vs. Concerning

Understanding typical timelines helps you distinguish between normal processing and situations where inquiry might be appropriate.

Normal Timeline Ranges

For most journals in most fields, manuscripts remain in “Decision in Process” for one to three weeks, typically, representing standard editorial workflow from Associate Editor recommendation through Editor-in-Chief review to communication preparation. Three to six weeks occur regularly at journals with high submission volumes, periodic editorial board meetings, or when decisions fall during academic holiday periods. Six to eight weeks happens occasionally during editorial transitions, when unusual deliberation is required, or when administrative complications arise.

These timelines assume the journal is functioning normally. Significant deviations beyond two months often reflect unusual circumstances rather than standard processing, making inquiry reasonable at that point.

When to Make a Polite Inquiry

Most journals specify expected decision timelines in their author guidelines, typically promising initial decisions within twelve to sixteen weeks of submission. If your manuscript has been in “Decision in Process” for a duration that, combined with earlier stages, approaches or exceeds the promised timeline, polite inquiry becomes appropriate.

The inquiry should be brief, professional, and understanding of editorial workload. A suitable message might be: “I submitted manuscript [number] on [date], and the status has shown ‘Decision in Process’ since [date]. I understand editorial review takes time, and I appreciate the careful consideration. I am writing to confirm the submission is progressing normally and to inquire about the expected timeline for a decision. Thank you for your assistance.”

Send inquiries to the editorial office email, not directly to individual editors unless your correspondence has been directly with a specific editor. Respect that a response might take several days, and avoid repeated follow-ups unless weeks pass without acknowledgment.

Red Flags Suggesting System Issues

Certain patterns suggest technical problems rather than normal editorial deliberation. If “Decision in Process” appears but then disappears without explanation or communication, this might indicate system errors rather than deliberate status changes. If the status persists for three or more months without any communication, particularly after peer review was completed, this suggests administrative problems or editorial transitions disrupting workflow.

If your inquiry receives automated responses but no substantive reply after multiple weeks, escalation to the publisher’s customer service might be necessary. If you discover through other channels that the handling editor has left the journal or institution, your manuscript might be orphaned in the system, requiring editorial office intervention to reassign it.

These situations are uncommon but worth recognizing so you can distinguish editorial thoroughness from system dysfunction. Most extended “Decision in Process” periods reflect normal deliberation or workload rather than problems, but genuine issues occasionally occur.

How to Use This Waiting Time Productively

Rather than obsessively checking your submission portal, use the “Decision in Process” period for productive preparation regardless of the eventual outcome.

Prepare for Possible Revision

If the decision leads to a revision opportunity, you’ll want to respond quickly and thoroughly. Use this time to review your manuscript with fresh eyes, identifying sections that could be strengthened regardless of reviewer comments. Reread recent literature in your field to ensure your citations remain current and comprehensive. Consider what additional analyses or discussions might address potential reviewer concerns you can anticipate.

This preparation means that when reviewer comments arrive, you can focus on specific issues rather than general manuscript improvement. You’ll respond faster and more confidently because you’ve already refreshed your familiarity with the work.

Consider Alternative Journals Strategically

If the decision is rejection, you’ll want to resubmit quickly to maintain publication momentum. Use the waiting time to identify two or three alternative journals where your work would fit appropriately. Don’t just find “the next journal down” in prestige—identify journals where your topic, methodology, and contribution level genuinely match recent publications.

Read recent issues from these alternative venues, noting how they frame similar work and what contribution standards they maintain. Prepare draft cover letters tailored to each alternative, ready to customize based on any feedback the current journal provides. This preparation means rejection leads to rapid strategic resubmission rather than starting journal selection from scratch.

Advance Other Research Projects

The healthiest response to submission anxiety is productive work on other projects. Use this waiting period to make progress on your next manuscript, analyze data from ongoing studies, or write proposals for future research. The best antidote to submission anxiety is maintaining multiple research streams so that no single manuscript outcome determines your productivity or career progress.

Researchers who maintain healthy publishing pipelines don’t experience individual submission decisions as make-or-break moments because they always have other work advancing. “Decision in Process” becomes just another routine stage rather than an anxiety-inducing crisis because it’s one manuscript among several in various stages of development and submission.

Common Myths and Misconceptions About This Status

Several persistent misunderstandings about “Decision in Process” circulate in academic forums and author discussions, creating unnecessary anxiety or false hope.

Myth 1: Quick “Decision in Process” Means Rejection

Many authors assume that rapid transition to this status—particularly if it occurs within days—signals certain rejection. While quick desk rejection does show this pattern at some journals, the correlation is unreliable. Some journals update status to “Decision in Process” whenever any decision is being formulated, regardless of outcome or timeline.

Fast appearance of this status might mean desk rejection is being processed, or it might mean the Associate Editor reviewed your manuscript quickly and is forwarding it to the Editor-in-Chief for acceptance confirmation. The speed of status change reveals more about journal workflow conventions than about decision direction.

Myth 2: Long “Decision in Process” Means Acceptance

The inverse assumption—that extended time in this status indicates careful positive consideration or deliberation toward acceptance—also proves unreliable. Extended duration might mean a thorough positive evaluation, or it might reflect editorial disagreement about whether to reject, administrative backlog in processing decisions, or simply that the Editor-in-Chief hasn’t reached your manuscript in their review queue yet.

Duration in this status correlates weakly with outcome. Both acceptances and rejections can emerge after days or weeks in “Decision in Process,” making the timeline a poor predictor of decision direction.

Myth 3: This Status Allows Author Influence

Some authors wonder whether contacting the editor during “Decision in Process” might influence the outcome, either through expressing enthusiasm for revision or providing additional information. In reality, the decision is being formulated based on an evaluation already completed. Editorial decisions rest on manuscript merit, reviewer assessment, and journal fit—not on author enthusiasm or supplementary communication during the decision phase.

Unsolicited contact during this stage is more likely to annoy editors than influence outcomes. Reserve communication for situations where genuine clarification or information might affect evaluation, not for expressing hopes about decisions or trying to advocate for acceptance.

Myth 4: Status Changes Predict Outcomes

Authors sometimes believe that particular status change patterns—such as the manuscript briefly returning to “With Editor” before “Decision in Process,” or the status disappearing and reappearing—signal specific outcomes. These patterns typically reflect technical aspects of how manuscript management systems track workflow rather than meaningful information about editorial decisions.

Status mechanics vary across publishers and platforms. What appears as significant pattern changes might simply represent how the system labels different internal workflow steps. Interpreting these technical details as predictive signals creates false pattern recognition.

Different Journal Systems, Different Meanings

Understanding that “Decision in Process” terminology and timing vary across publishers and platforms helps contextualize your specific experience.

Publisher-Specific Variations

Different manuscript management systems use different terminology and update statuses at different workflow points. Elsevier’s Editorial Manager might show “Decision in Process” at different stages than Springer’s Editorial Manager or Taylor & Francis’s ScholarOne system. Some systems update status immediately when workflow moves to decision stages, while others update only when communications are being prepared.

These variations mean that comparing your experience with colleagues who submitted to journals using different systems provides limited useful information. Your journal’s specific workflow conventions determine what this status means and how long it typically lasts, not general patterns across all academic publishing.

Field-Specific Norms

Beyond technical system differences, disciplinary publishing cultures affect decision timelines. Fields with large reviewer pools and rapid review cycles might show shorter “Decision in Process” periods because the overall workflow moves faster. Fields with small specialist communities where finding reviewers takes months might show longer decision phases throughout the process.

Understanding your field’s normal timelines—which you can learn through colleagues’ experiences at journals in your discipline—provides more relevant context than general academic publishing advice. What constitutes concerning delay in fast-moving fields might represent normal processing in slower disciplines.

What Happens Next: Possible Outcomes

When “Decision in Process” finally resolves into actual communication, several distinct outcomes are possible, each requiring different responses from you.

Accept or Accept with Minor Revisions

The best outcome involves acceptance, either outright or conditional on minor changes like formatting adjustments, small clarifications, or citation updates. This outcome is rare for initial submissions but becomes more common after successful major revision rounds. When it arrives, follow revision instructions carefully and submit corrected materials promptly to move toward publication.

Major Revision or Revise and Resubmit

This outcome indicates editors see publication potential but require substantial improvement before acceptance. The distinction between “major revision” and “revise and resubmit” varies by journal but generally reflects confidence level in eventual acceptance after revision. Both require careful, thorough responses to all reviewer comments, which our guide on responding to peer review comments addresses comprehensively.

Rejection with Encouragement to Resubmit

Some journals reject manuscripts but explicitly invite resubmission after substantial revision addressing identified concerns. This outcome occupies ambiguous space between rejection and revision invitation. Our guide on revise and resubmit decisions explores how to evaluate whether such resubmission is worthwhile.

Rejection with Recommendation to Submit Elsewhere

This outcome acknowledges manuscript quality but indicates poor fit with the journal. The editor might suggest more appropriate venues, or the rejection letter might reference scope mismatch. This represents the most common form of desk rejection and should prompt immediate consideration of alternative journals. Our journal selection guide helps identify better-matched venues.

Outright Rejection

The harshest outcome involves rejection without encouragement or suggestions for improvement. This typically reflects fundamental quality or methodological concerns that revision cannot address. Understanding why journals reject manuscripts helps interpret these decisions and determine appropriate next steps.

When Should You Contact the Editor? (And How to Do It Professionally)

Knowing when inquiry is appropriate versus premature helps you avoid seeming impatient while still advocating for your manuscript.

The 2-3-4 Week Rule

Week 1-2: Wait patiently

• ✅ Status just changed recently
• ✅ Still within normal processing timeframe
• ✅ Holiday periods or known slow times
• ❌ Don’t contact yet – too early

Week 3-4: Consider gentle inquiry

• ⚠️ Approaching the upper range of the normal timeline
• ⚠️ Journal’s stated decision timeline is approaching
• ⚠️ You have legitimate time-sensitive circumstances
• ✅ Polite status inquiry becomes reasonable

Week 5+: Definitely follow up

• 🚨 Beyond normal processing time
• 🚨 Journal’s promised timeline has passed
• 🚨 No response to previous inquiry
• ✅ Follow-up is expected and appropriate

Email Template #1: Standard Status Inquiry (Week 3-4)

Subject: Status Inquiry - Manuscript [ID Number]

Dear Editorial Office,

I am writing to inquire about the status of my manuscript titled "[Your Title]" (Manuscript ID: [ID]), which has shown "Decision in Process" status in Editorial Manager since [Date - approximately X weeks ago].

I understand editorial decisions require careful consideration and don't wish to rush the process. I wanted to confirm the manuscript is progressing normally and ensure no additional information is needed from me.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
[Your Name]

Email Template #2: Timeline-Based Follow-Up (Week 5+)

Subject: Follow-Up on Manuscript [ID] - Timeline Question

Dear Dr. [Editor Name],

I submitted my manuscript "[Title]" (ID: [ID]) on [Date], and it entered "Decision in Process" status on [Date - X weeks ago].

The journal's guidelines indicate decisions within [stated timeline], which has now been [exceeded by X weeks/approaching]. I wanted to check whether the review is progressing normally or if any action is needed from my end.

I remain very interested in publishing in [Journal Name] and am happy to provide any additional information.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

What NOT to Do When Following Up

❌ Don’t send multiple emails days apart – appears impatient and clogs editor inboxes
❌ Don’t use aggressive or entitled language – editors are volunteers managing heavy workloads
❌ Don’t fabricate urgent deadlines – dishonesty damages your professional reputation
❌ Don’t CC multiple people – handle through proper channels (editorial office first)
❌ Don’t threaten withdrawal – unless you genuinely plan to withdraw

When to Escalate Beyond the Editor

If you receive no response after:

• Two polite emails spaced 2 weeks apart
• Timeline exceeds journal’s stated promise by 50%+
• You have evidence of system issues (status glitches, returned emails)

Then, contact the publisher’s editorial support rather than individual editors. Use phrases like “I’m concerned my manuscript may have been lost in the system” rather than blaming specific people.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does “Decision in Process” mean my paper is rejected?

No. This status is neutral and precedes all possible outcomes: acceptance, revision requests (major or minor), and rejection. The status itself reveals nothing about the likely decision.

How is “Decision in Process” different from “With Editor”?

“With Editor” typically occurs earlier in the workflow when the editor is deciding whether to send for peer review. “Decision in Process” occurs after reviews are complete (or after desk evaluation) when the final publication decision is being formulated.

Can the status go backward from Decision in Process?

Rarely, but yes. If the editor determines they need additional reviewer input after beginning decision formulation, the status might revert to “Under Review” or “With Editor.” This isn’t necessarily bad news – just means more information is needed.

Why does Decision in Process take longer for some manuscripts than others?

Multiple factors affect individual timelines: reviewer consensus clarity, manuscript complexity, editor workload, holiday periods, editorial board consultation needs, and administrative processing capacity. Timeline length doesn’t correlate with outcome quality.

What does “Decision in Process” mean in Elsevier journals specifically?

In Elsevier’s Editorial Manager system (used by ~2,500 journals), “Decision in Process” indicates the handling editor has moved the manuscript into final decision formulation after completing evaluation. It’s part of the standard workflow and doesn’t signal specific outcomes.

Is “Editor Decision Started” the same as “Decision in Process”?

Yes. Springer Nature journals often use “Editor Decision Started” while Elsevier journals use “Decision in Process.” These are different labels for the identical editorial stage – the editor is making the final decision.

Should I email the editor if Decision in Process lasts 2 weeks?

Not yet. Two weeks is well within normal range. Consider inquiry after 3-4 weeks, especially if approaching or exceeding the journal’s stated decision timeline. See our email templates above for appropriate phrasing.

What happens after Decision in Process?

The status changes to one of these outcomes: “Accept” or “Accepted,” “Minor Revision,” “Major Revision,” “Reject” or “Not Suitable for Publication,” or occasionally “Revise and Resubmit.” You’ll receive a decision letter explaining the outcome and next steps.

Key Takeaway

“Decision in Process” represents a routine stage in the editorial workflow where your manuscript receives final evaluation and decision formulation. The status itself reveals nothing definitive about outcome, timeline, or decision direction. It simply indicates that editorial attention has turned from evaluation to decision-making.

The anxiety this status creates stems from uncertainty and the high stakes researchers attach to individual manuscript outcomes. The productive response involves recognizing that this stage, however frustrating its opacity, represents normal academic publishing practice. Editors need time to synthesize reviews, weigh recommendations, and formulate defensible decisions. That time is not personal to you or indicative of your manuscript’s fate.

While you wait, focus on what you can control: preparing for possible revision, identifying alternative journals if needed, and maintaining progress on other research projects. The decision will arrive when the editorial workflow completes its course, and your productive preparation ensures you respond effectively regardless of the outcome.

Most importantly, remember that every published researcher has experienced the “Decision in Process” waiting period multiple times. It’s an unavoidable aspect of academic publishing, neither special to your manuscript nor predictive of its ultimate fate. Patience during this phase is not optional—it’s simply part of the process of scholarly communication.

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 strategies and insights reflect editorial practices observed throughout the peer review process in engineering and interdisciplinary research.

Questions about manuscript status updates? Leave a comment below.

Related Articles

If you’re navigating the academic publishing process, these resources will help you understand each possible outcome and how to respond effectively:

• How Editors Make Final Decisions – Behind-the-scenes perspective on what happens during editorial deliberation
• Why Journals Reject Manuscripts – Understanding possible outcomes when “Decision in Process” resolves
• Revise and Resubmit: Is It Worth It? – Evaluating revision opportunities when they arrive
• How to Respond to Peer Review Comments – Preparing for successful revision if that’s the outcome
• Find the Right Journal for Your Manuscript – Strategic targeting for your next submission if rejection occurs