You submitted your first paper six weeks ago and the status still says “under review”. Is something wrong? Almost certainly not. The peer review process involves several people who review for free alongside their own work, and each handover adds days or weeks. This guide explains the eight stages a manuscript passes through, the main review models, what published research says about how long each stage takes, and how to plan your thesis, graduation or job applications around realistic timelines.
This article is part of our guide How to Write a Master’s Thesis by the Mastermind PhD team and relates to our Journal Article support service. Sources last checked: November 2026.
What is the peer review process? The peer review process is the evaluation of a manuscript by independent experts in the same field before a journal decides whether to publish it. An editor screens the submission, invites reviewers, reads their reports and makes a decision: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. Its purpose is to check validity, originality and clarity; it cannot prove that every result in a paper is correct.
What are the stages of the peer review process?
Journals use different software and labels, but the sequence is almost always the same.
| Stage | What happens | Status you may see |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Submission | You upload the manuscript, cover letter and declarations | Submitted |
| 2. Technical check | Editorial office checks format, files, ethics statements and similarity | With editorial office |
| 3. Desk review | The editor decides whether the paper fits the journal and merits review | With editor |
| 4. Reviewer invitations | The editor invites two or more reviewers; some decline | Reviewers invited |
| 5. Review | Reviewers read and write reports | Under review |
| 6. Decision | The editor weighs the reports and decides | Decision in process |
| 7. Revision rounds | You revise and respond; the paper may return to reviewers | Revision submitted |
| 8. Acceptance and production | Copyediting, proofs and online publication | Accepted, in production |
Stage 4 is the one authors underestimate. If invited reviewers decline or do not respond, the editor must invite others, and the clock restarts.
Which peer review models will you meet?
Elsevier describes several models in use across journals:
- Single anonymized: reviewers know who the authors are, but authors do not know the reviewers. This is the most common model.
- Double anonymized: neither side knows the other’s identity, so you must remove names and self-identifying details from the manuscript.
- Triple anonymized: the handling editor also does not see author identities.
- Open review: identities are known, and sometimes reports are published with the article.
The model affects how you prepare files, not the timeline. Always check the journal’s guide for authors before submission.
📱 Ask about journal publication support — Help choosing a suitable journal and meeting author guidelines, with a Turnitin report before submission.
How long does the peer review process take?
Published research gives a sense of scale, though every journal differs.
Huisman and Smits analyzed about 3,500 review experiences that authors reported to the SciRev website. They found clear field differences: medicine, public health and the natural sciences had the shortest processes, while mathematics and computer science, the social sciences, economics and business, and the humanities had the longest. One third of journals took more than two weeks to issue an immediate (desk) rejection, and one sixth took more than four weeks.
Björk and Solomon studied the full delay from submission to publication for 2,700 papers in 135 Scopus journals. The average ranged from about 9 months in chemistry to about 18 months in business and economics, and most of the variation was between articles within the same journal rather than between journals.
What timelines should you plan with?
The table below is a planning framework built from the stages above, not measured averages. Replace it with the figures your target journal publishes; many journals show a median “time to first decision” on their homepage.
| Scenario | What usually drives it | Planning assumption |
|---|---|---|
| Desk rejection | Scope or quality mismatch | Days to a few weeks |
| First decision after review | Finding reviewers, review time | Several weeks to several months |
| One round of revision | Your revision time plus a second review | Add a few more months |
| Production after acceptance | Proofs and typesetting | Weeks, longer for print issues |
Two practical rules follow. First, if your program requires an accepted or published paper before graduation, submit as early as possible and ask what counts (submitted, accepted or published). Second, treat a peer review process that crosses a deadline as normal, not as a problem with your paper.
When should you contact the editor?
Waiting is expected, but silence well beyond the journal’s stated time to first decision justifies a short, polite query. Write to the editorial office, give the manuscript number, and ask whether there is an update on the status. Avoid repeated messages and never contact reviewers directly. If the journal has no published timeline, one query after about three months without any status change is a reasonable courtesy.
What do reviewers look for?
The COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers ask reviewers to be objective and constructive, keep the manuscript confidential and declare conflicts of interest. In practice, reviewers check whether:
- The research question is clear and worth answering.
- The methods can answer it and are described well enough to repeat.
- The results support the conclusions without overreach.
- The literature is current and fairly represented.
- The paper is clearly written and fits the journal’s audience.
A paper drawn from a thesis usually fails on point 5: it is too long and reads like a chapter. Cutting it to one question and one main finding speeds up the peer review process more than anything else you control.
How do revisions affect the timeline?
Most accepted papers go through at least one revision. A major revision can mean new analyses, so plan for it when you set your timeline. Answer every comment point by point; an incomplete response letter often triggers another round. Our guide to responding to reviewer comments gives a template.
How can you use the waiting time well?
The months spent in the peer review process do not have to be dead time. Four uses are worth planning:
- Post a preprint if the journal’s policy allows it. Many journals accept submissions that are already on a preprint server, and a preprint gives your work a date and a DOI that you can cite in applications. Check the journal’s policy first, because some fields and journals still restrict preprints.
- Present the work at a conference or seminar, which brings feedback you can use if revisions are requested.
- Prepare for revisions by keeping your data, analysis files and code organized, so that a reviewer’s request for an extra test takes days, not weeks.
- Start the next paper. Researchers who publish regularly usually have one paper under review while writing the next.
Record the submission date, manuscript number and every status change in a simple log. When you need to report progress to a supervisor or a scholarship office, the log answers the question in seconds.
What should you do after a rejection?
Read the reports, fix what is valid, and submit to the next journal on your list within a few weeks. Do not submit the same manuscript to two journals at once; journals prohibit simultaneous submission. Some publishers offer a transfer service that passes the paper, and sometimes the reviewer reports, to another journal in the same group, which can shorten the next peer review process.
📱 Ask on WhatsApp now — 5 years of experience across all disciplines and 14 academic services. Two-stage payment (80/20); revisions are free until supervisor approval, within 30% of the chapter.
Frequently asked questions
Why does my submission stay “with editor” for weeks?
The editor may be handling many papers or struggling to find reviewers. A long period at this status often means invitations are being declined and sent again.
Is a fast decision usually a rejection?
Often, yes. A decision within days is usually a desk rejection, which saves time and lets you submit elsewhere quickly.
How many reviewers will read my paper?
Usually two or three, though some journals use one reviewer plus the editor and others use more for disputed papers.
Can I suggest or exclude reviewers?
Many journals let you suggest reviewers and name people to exclude, with a reason. Editors are not obliged to follow suggestions, and you must not suggest close collaborators.
Should a master’s student plan on publishing before graduation?
Only if the program requires it or the timeline allows it. Given the timelines reported in the research above, a paper submitted in the final semester will often still be under review at graduation.
Sources
- Huisman, J., & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics, 113(1), 633-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5
- Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914-923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001
- Elsevier. What is peer review? https://www.elsevier.com/reviewer/what-is-peer-review (accessed November 2026)
- COPE Council. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2). Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
- Think. Check. Submit. Journals checklist. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/ (accessed November 2026)
Sources last checked: November 2026. This article is general educational guidance and does not replace your university regulations or your supervisor’s instructions. How we prepare our content.