Waiting for a decision is one of the most frustrating parts of publishing, partly because it's invisible. The status says "under review" for weeks, and it's hard to know whether that's normal or whether something has gone wrong.
This post brings together three sources: SciRev's data on about 3,500 review experiences reported by authors, analysed by Huisman and Smits in Scientometrics (2017); Publons' 2018 Global State of Peer Review report on reviewer behaviour; and Björk and Solomon's 2013 study of publishing delays across 135 journals.
- 13 weeksAverage from submission to first decision after review, across fields (SciRev)
- 8 vs 18Weeks in medicine versus economics, business and law
- 16.4 daysMedian time a reviewer takes once they've agreed (Publons, 2018)
- 9 vs 18Months from submission to publication in chemistry versus business and economics
Peer review timelines by field
The SciRev figures measure the first review round: from submission until the editor tells you the outcome of peer review. They're self-reported by authors, so treat them as a guide rather than a guarantee.
| Field | Average weeks to first decision | Within 1 month | Within 3 months |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medicine | 8 | 28% | 84% |
| Public health and health professions | 9 | 27% | 81% |
| Natural sciences | 11 | 25% | 77% |
| General / multidisciplinary | 11 | 11% | 77% |
| Engineering and technology | 13 | 21% | 71% |
| Psychology | 14 | 11% | 60% |
| Humanities | 16 | 7% | 53% |
| Mathematics and computer science | 17 | 11% | 54% |
| Social sciences | 17 | 8% | 50% |
| Economics, business and law | 18 | 10% | 55% |
Source: Huisman and Smits (2017), as tabulated in European Science Editing (2019). Across all fields, 68% of first decisions came within three months and 90% within six.
One detail is easy to miss: papers that were eventually accepted averaged 12 weeks in the first round, while those rejected averaged 16. A long wait isn't a good sign in itself.
Where the weeks go
If a reviewer typically takes about two and a half weeks, why does the first decision take three months? Because writing reviews is only one of several steps, and most of the others involve waiting.
| Stage | Typical time | What's happening |
|---|---|---|
| Technical check and editor screening | Days to two weeks | Files and formatting checked; editor decides whether to send out or desk reject |
| Finding reviewers | One to several weeks | Invitations sent, often in rounds, until two or three reviewers agree |
| Reviews | Two to six weeks | Reviewers read and write; the decision waits for the slowest |
| Editor's decision | One to two weeks | The editor reads the reports, sometimes seeks another, and writes the letter |
| Your revision | Weeks to months | The part you control |
| Further rounds and production | Months | Re-review, acceptance, copyediting and publication |
The hidden step: finding reviewers
The Publons report found that reviewers agreed to about 54% of invitations in 2013 and about 44% in 2017, while the number of invitations grew year on year. At a 44% agreement rate, an editor needs a little over two invitations for each reviewer who says yes, so five or more to secure two or three. If invitations go out in rounds and each waits several days for a reply, finding reviewers alone can take weeks.
The slowest reviewer sets the pace
The median reviewer finished 16.4 days after agreeing (mean 19.1 days), with averages near 12 days in chemistry and pharmacology and about 30 days in mathematics and in economics and business. The decision can't be made until the last report arrives, so the slowest reviewer, not the typical one, determines the timeline.
Week 1: technical check and editor screening. Weeks 2 to 4: invitations, with some declines, until three reviewers agree. Weeks 4 to 10: reviews, with the last arriving well after the median. Weeks 10 to 12: the editor reads, decides and writes. That adds up to about 12 weeks, close to the SciRev average, even though no single step looks slow.
From acceptance to publication
Björk and Solomon sampled 2,700 papers from 135 journals indexed in Scopus. Average time from submission to publication was about 9 months in chemistry and about 18 months in business and economics, with science, technology and medicine at the shorter end and the social sciences, arts and humanities at the longer. They also found that most of the variation in time to acceptance came from differences between individual articles, while the time from acceptance to publication depended mostly on the journal.
Many journals now publish articles online soon after acceptance, so the gap may be shorter than it was. If timing matters to you, check the "received", "accepted" and "published" dates on a few recent articles in your target journal. They're printed on most papers and are the most reliable guide you'll find.
What the status labels usually mean
- Submitted / With editorial office: technical checks of files and formatting.
- With editor: the editor is screening, or deciding whom to invite.
- Reviewers invited / Under review: invitations are out, or reviewers are working.
- Required reviews completed: the reports are in and the editor is preparing a decision.
- Decision in process: a decision is being finalised; the letter is usually days away.
Labels differ between submission systems, and a status can stay unchanged while invitations are being declined.
When, and how, to contact the editor
Many journals publish a median time to first decision on their website. Once that has passed, or about three months have gone by if the journal gives no figure, a short email is reasonable. Keep it polite and specific:
Dear Dr [Name], I'm writing to ask about the status of manuscript [ID], "[Title]", submitted on [date]. I understand that finding reviewers can take time, and I'd be grateful for any update on the expected timeline. Thank you for handling our submission. Kind regards, [Name]
Don't chase every few weeks, and never submit the same paper elsewhere while it's under review. That's duplicate submission. If you decide to move on, formally withdraw first.
Using the wait well
- Post a preprint, if the journal's policy allows it, so your work is visible now.
- Prepare for revision. Note the weaknesses you already know about and gather what you'd need to address them.
- Start the next paper. The wait is predictable enough to plan around.
- Plan your response. Our use case on responding to reviewer comments shows how to structure a point-by-point reply.
How to shorten the timeline
- Choose journals that publish their review times, and compare them with the dates on recent articles.
- Submit a complete, compliant manuscript, so it doesn't bounce back from the technical check.
- Suggest well-matched reviewers without conflicts of interest, if the journal invites suggestions.
- Revise quickly. Your revision time counts towards the total as much as the journal's does.
- Avoid a desk rejection at the start. Our guide to why papers get desk rejected covers how.
The time you control is the revision. In LitraMind, you can paste the reviewers' comments at the top of your manuscript, work through them section by section, and use AI Edit for the language changes reviewers ask for, so the paper goes back sooner.
