How Long Does Peer Review Take?

One of the most common frustrations in academic publishing is the wait. You submit your manuscript, and then — silence. Weeks pass, then months. You wonder whether the paper has been lost, whether reviewers are taking their time, or whether something has gone wrong in the system. 

The truth is that peer review timelines vary enormously by journal, field, and individual reviewer circumstances. This guide gives you realistic benchmarks by field, explains the structural reasons behind delays, and provides practical strategies for managing the wait — and minimising it. 

Average Peer Review Timelines 

Based on published journal statistics, platform data, and large-scale researcher surveys: 

Stage	Typical Duration
Editorial desk review	1–4 weeks
Finding and inviting reviewers	1–3 weeks
First peer review (accepted reviewers)	4–12 weeks
Total time to first decision	6–20 weeks
Author revision period	1–3 months (your timeline)
Second review round	2–8 weeks
Acceptance to online publication	2–8 weeks
Online to print	1–6 months

The median time from submission to first decision across all fields is approximately 12–16 weeks. But this average conceals enormous variation — some journals routinely reach first decisions in 3–4 weeks; others regularly take 6+ months. 

Peer Review Timelines by Field 

Citation culture, reviewer availability, and publication norms vary significantly by discipline. 

Field	Typical first decision time
Biomedical and clinical research	8–20 weeks
Life sciences	10–20 weeks
Chemistry (ACS journals tend faster)	6–16 weeks
Physics	8–20 weeks
Environmental science	10–20 weeks
Computer science	8–16 weeks (conference proceedings often faster)
Social sciences	12–24 weeks
Economics	12–30 weeks (some top journals take 6+ months)
Psychology	10–20 weeks
Humanities	3–12 months
Engineering	8–20 weeks

High-IF journals within any field tend toward the longer end of these ranges due to submission volume and more demanding reviewer expectations. Specialist journals with smaller reviewer pools can also be slower due to reviewer scarcity. 

The 5 Main Reasons Peer Review Takes So Long 

1. Reviewer Scarcity: The Root Cause 

Peer review is unpaid voluntary work performed by researchers who are already managing teaching loads, grant writing, laboratory supervision, and their own research. It is genuinely difficult to recruit reviewers. 

Across academic publishing, editors typically need to invite 5–10 researchers before 2 accept a review request. The invitation process alone — sending invitations, waiting for responses, following up — routinely takes 2–3 weeks. Some niche fields report needing to invite 15 or more people to secure two reviewers. 

 2. Reviewer Delays After Acceptance 

Even after accepting, reviewers frequently miss their deadlines. Most journals give reviewers 2–4 weeks to complete a review. In practice, many reviewers request and receive extensions of 1–2 additional weeks. Some do not submit at all, forcing editors to find replacement reviewers from scratch and restart the clock. 

 A 2023 survey found that approximately 60% of peer reviews are submitted late. This is the single most common cause of the gap between a journal’s advertised and actual review timelines. 

3. High Submission Volumes at Selective Journals 

Top journals receive thousands of submissions per year. Nature reportedly receives over 10,000 manuscripts annually. Even before external review, the editorial desk review process for this volume creates queuing delays. At periods of unusually high submission volume — following major public events, policy changes, or scientific news — these delays can compound significantly. 

4. Multiple Revision Rounds 

A single major revision cycle adds 3–6 months to the total timeline: time for authors to revise (1–3 months), time for resubmission to go back to reviewers (4–8 weeks), and time for a further editorial decision. Papers that go through two or more major revision rounds before acceptance can take 18–24 months from first submission to publication. 

5. Editorial and Administrative Bottlenecks 

Editorial queues, the coordination required between editors and editorial offices, platform delays, and the time required for thorough desk review all introduce additional delays that are invisible to authors but real in the system. 

How to Find Journals With Faster Review Cycles 

Method 1: Check Published Journal Statistics 

Many journals publish their average time to first decision, time to acceptance, and time to publication on their websites under “For Authors” or “About the Journal.” This is usually found in the journal’s statistical reports or impact metrics page. 

 Look for: 

• “Median time to first decision” 
• “Average review time” 
• “Time from submission to acceptance” 

Be aware that published statistics represent averages and may be aspirational rather than current reality. 

Method 2: Use SciRev (scirev.org) 

SciRev is a free, researcher-contributed database of peer review experiences at specific journals, including: 

• Actual time from submission to first decision 
• Whether the decision matched the experience (fair, reasonable, unreasonable) 
• Whether the reviewer reports were constructive 
• Anonymous comments about the editorial process 

SciRev data is often more accurate than official journal statistics because it reflects real recent experiences. Search your target journals by name and review the timeline data before submitting. 

Method 3: Ask Colleagues 

 Researchers in your field who have recently published in your target journals have direct, current experience of actual review timelines. Informal knowledge from a colleague who submitted to a journal 3 months ago is often more accurate than a journal’s published statistics from two years ago. 

Method 4: Check for Editorial Policies That Accelerate Review 

 Some journals have specific fast-track options: 

• Accelerated review for papers addressing urgent public health or policy questions 
• Cascaded review where reviewer reports transfer from a higher-tier sibling journal 
• Streamlined review for certain paper types (brief communications, short reports) 

What to Do While You Wait 

Track your submission status. Most online submission systems provide status updates (e.g., “With Editor,” “Reviewers Invited,” “Under Review,” “Decision in Process”). Check regularly but not obsessively. 

Set a follow-up date. Most journals recommend waiting at least 8–12 weeks before following up. Some advise waiting for the full stated review period plus 4 weeks before contacting the editorial office. 

Follow up politely if timelines are exceeded. If you have exceeded the journal’s stated review timeline by 4+ weeks, a brief, polite email to the editorial office is entirely appropriate. State your submission date, manuscript number, and ask for an update. 

Do not contact reviewers directly. This is considered a serious breach of publishing ethics and can immediately disqualify your paper. 

Consider posting a preprint. If your findings are time-sensitive, posting a preprint on arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, or a field-appropriate server establishes priority, enables the community to access your work, and allows you to cite your findings in subsequent work — all while your journal paper is under review. Check your target journal’s preprint policy first (most allow preprints). 

Begin writing your next paper. The most productive use of the peer review waiting period is continuing your research and beginning the next manuscript. 

Tracking Your Submission Status Accurately 

Most online submission systems provide status updates throughout the review process. Understanding what each status means helps you know when to wait and when to follow up. 

Status	Meaning	Expected next step
Submitted	Manuscript received	Editorial screening begins
With Editor	Under desk review	Desk accept or reject (1–4 weeks)
Reviewers Invited	Editor is seeking reviewers	Wait for reviewer acceptance (1–3 weeks)
Under Review	Reviewers have accepted and are reviewing	Wait for reviews (4–12 weeks)
Required Reviews Completed	All reviewer reports received	Editor making decision (1–2 weeks)
Decision in Process	Editor drafting decision	Decision imminent (days)
Revisions Requested	Decision received — check email	Revise and resubmit

If your status has not changed for 8+ weeks past the journal’s stated review time, a polite status enquiry to the editorial office is entirely appropriate. 

When to Consider Withdrawing and Submitting Elsewhere 

There are situations where withdrawing a paper under review — even after a long wait — is the right decision: 

• directly competing paper has been published that substantially overlaps your findings 
• You have discovered a significant error that requires substantial manuscript revision 
• Your circumstances have changed (career deadline, preprint priority concern) 

Withdraw by contacting the editorial office directly. Be professional and brief. There is no need for extensive explanation. Avoid withdrawing simply because the wait feels long — you may be close to a decision. 

How to Reduce Your Peer Review Timeline 

Submit a polished, well-formatted manuscript. Manuscripts that comply fully with author guidelines, have professional figures, and are clearly written move through editorial processing faster and attract better-quality reviews. 

Write a compelling cover letter. A strong cover letter can reduce desk review time by making the editor’s assessment easier and faster. 

Suggest appropriate reviewers. When invited to suggest reviewers, provide genuine experts. Good reviewer suggestions help editors fill review slots faster. 

Target journals appropriately. Submitting to a journal that is far above your paper’s significance level guarantees a longer wait for a predictable rejection. Target journals where your paper genuinely fits — you will get a faster, more informative response. 

Consider journals with explicit fast-review policies. Some journals (particularly in medicine and public health) have formal expedited review programmes. Biology Letters (Royal Society), for example, publishes rapid short communications with fast review cycles. 

Frequently Asked Questions 

What is a reasonable time to wait before following up? 

For most journals, 10–14 weeks from submission is a reasonable threshold before sending a polite status enquiry. Always check the journal’s guidelines — some specify a recommended wait time. Always contact the editorial office, not the editor-in-chief or individual reviewers. 

Why does peer review take so much longer than journals claim? 

Published statistics represent medians or averages, which are often pulled down by papers that move through quickly while many others experience longer delays. Reviewer scarcity, delays, and multi-round revision cycles mean actual timelines regularly exceed stated ones. 

Can I withdraw my paper while under review? 

Yes. You can withdraw your manuscript at any time before acceptance. Contact the editorial office directly by email or through the submission system. Be aware that withdrawing a paper that has had significant reviewer time invested in it may damage your relationship with that journal’s editorial team. 

How do I know if my paper is actually being reviewed? 

Check your submission system status. “Under Review” or “Reviewers Assigned” typically indicates that reviewers have accepted the invitation and review is in progress. “Reviewers Invited” indicates the editor is still trying to secure reviewers. “With Editor” often indicates desk review or post-review editorial decision-making. 

Useful guides for researchers preparing to submit 

These PubScholars resources cover the full journal selection and submission process: 

How to Choose the Right Journal for Your Paper — a practical framework for matching scope, audience, and impact factor to your manuscript 

How to Publish a Research Paper — the complete step-by-step guide from manuscript prep to post-publication promotion 

Impact Factor vs CiteScore: Which Matters More? — how the two metrics differ and when to use each 

Does Impact Factor Affect Manuscript Acceptance Chances? — what IF signals about desk rejection rates and submission strategy 

Which Journals Have the Highest Impact Factor? — field-by-field rankings across medicine, biology, chemistry, and physics 

Conclusion 

Peer review timelines are genuinely unpredictable, but understanding the typical ranges and the structural reasons behind delays helps you plan your research output realistically. Using SciRev to research actual timelines at your target journals, submitting polished manuscripts to appropriately matched journals, and using the waiting period productively are the most effective strategies for managing the process. For time-sensitive findings, a preprint posted simultaneously with or before journal submission ensures your work reaches the community regardless of how long the formal review process takes.