How to Check a Journal's Peer Review Speed Before You Submit
By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD ·
Quick Answer
- Check the journal's own website for stated review timelines, then verify those claims against independent databases and community reports.
- Use Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed to identify journals in your field, then examine their published articles for submission and acceptance dates.
- Published review times are often averages that hide wide variation, so treat any single data point as a starting estimate instead of a guarantee.
Why Review Speed Matters Before Submission
The time between submission and a first editorial decision directly affects research timelines, grant deadlines, and career progression. For graduate students facing degree deadlines, early-career researchers preparing for job applications, and laboratory staff managing multiple projects, a slow review process can create cascading delays that affect funding and publication plans.
Peer review speed is not a measure of journal quality. A fast review can indicate efficient editorial management or a high desk-rejection rate. A slow review can indicate thorough evaluation or an understaffed editorial office. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe peer review as a fundamental component of scholarly publishing, but those practices do not prescribe specific timelines. Journals implement peer review differently, and those differences produce measurable variation in turnaround times.
The practical problem is that researchers often discover review speed only after submission. By that point, the time cost is already incurred. A systematic pre-submission check reduces the risk of choosing a journal whose review process conflicts with your deadlines.
What Review Speed Actually Measures
Review speed is not a single number. Different journals report different metrics, and comparing them requires understanding what each metric captures.
Time to First Decision
This is the most commonly cited metric. It measures the interval from submission to the first editorial decision, which may be acceptance, rejection, or a request for revision. This metric includes time spent in editorial screening, reviewer selection, and the review itself.
Time to Acceptance
This metric measures the interval from submission to final acceptance, including all revision rounds. It is always longer than time to first decision and is more relevant for researchers who need to predict when a paper will be officially accepted.
Time to Publication
This metric measures the interval from acceptance to online publication. It includes copyediting, typesetting, proof review, and production scheduling. Some journals publish accepted manuscripts online before final formatting, which shortens the effective publication delay.
Desk Rejection Time
Desk rejections occur when editors return a manuscript without external review. These decisions are typically faster than full peer review. A journal with a high desk-rejection rate may report a short average time to first decision because many manuscripts are rejected quickly, while manuscripts that proceed to review take much longer.
Where to Find Reliable Review Speed Data
No single source provides complete, verified review time data for all journals. A practical approach combines multiple sources and cross-checks the information.
Journal Websites
Most journals publish their average review times in the author guidelines or the journal's about page. These figures are self-reported and may be calculated differently across journals. Some journals report median times, others report averages, and some do not specify the calculation method.
Look for the specific metric being reported. A journal that states "average time to first decision: 30 days" may exclude desk rejections from the calculation. A journal that states "average time from submission to publication: 6 months" includes production time that is outside the editorial control of the review process.
Scopus and Web of Science
These abstract and citation databases allow you to search for journals in your field and examine their publication patterns. While they do not provide direct review time statistics, they show the dates of submission and acceptance on published articles. Many journals include these dates in the article metadata.
To use this method, search for recently published articles in the target journal and record the submission and acceptance dates. The difference between these dates approximates the total review time for that specific article. Sampling multiple articles gives a range that reflects the journal's actual performance.
PubMed and Other Subject Databases
For biomedical journals, PubMed provides article metadata that often includes submission and acceptance dates. The National Library of Medicine's Bookshelf and related research methods resources offer guidance on how to evaluate research publications, though they do not compile journal review speed statistics.
Community Reports
Academic social networks, researcher forums, and institutional discussion groups often contain firsthand accounts of review experiences. These reports are anecdotal and may reflect unusual cases, but they can reveal patterns that official statistics miss, such as periods when a journal's review process slowed significantly.
Publisher Reports
Some publishers publish annual reports that include average review times across their journal portfolios. These reports are useful for comparing journals within the same publisher but may not reflect the experience of a specific manuscript.
How to Assess Review Speed Before Submission
A systematic assessment takes about 30 minutes per journal. The process involves checking multiple sources and comparing the information you find.
Step 1: Check the Journal's Official Statement
Start with the journal's author guidelines. Look for any stated review timeline. Record the exact wording and the metric being reported. Note whether the journal distinguishes between time to first decision and time to acceptance.
Step 2: Examine Recent Published Articles
Go to the journal's current issue or search for recently published articles in your field. For each article, find the submission and acceptance dates. These dates are usually listed in the article footer or in the metadata section.
Record the dates for at least five recent articles. Calculate the difference between submission and acceptance for each article. This gives you a range of actual review times.
Step 3: Check the Journal's Editorial Board
Look at the editorial board composition. Journals with active, engaged editorial boards often process manuscripts more efficiently. Check whether the editor-in-chief has published statements about review timelines or editorial policies.
Step 4: Search for Community Reports
Search for the journal name along with terms like "review time," "submission experience," or "editorial decision." Look for recent reports from researchers who have submitted to the journal. Pay attention to reports from the past year, as editorial policies and staffing change over time.
Step 5: Compare Against Field Norms
Review times vary by discipline. Biomedical journals often have different timelines than mathematics or engineering journals. Compare the target journal's performance against other journals in the same field to determine whether its review speed is typical.
At a Glance: Review Speed Assessment Checklist
| Check | What to Look For | What It Tells You |
|---|---|---|
| Journal website | Stated average time to first decision or acceptance | The journal's official claim about its process |
| Recent articles | Submission and acceptance dates on published papers | Actual review times for recent manuscripts |
| Editorial board | Active editors with relevant expertise | Whether the journal has capacity to manage reviews |
| Community reports | Recent researcher experiences | Patterns that official statistics may miss |
| Field comparison | Review times at similar journals | Whether the journal's speed is typical for your discipline |
| Publisher data | Annual reports with portfolio-wide statistics | Context for comparing journals within one publisher |
Using Databases to Identify Candidate Journals
Before assessing review speed, you need a list of candidate journals. Databases provide systematic ways to identify journals that publish research in your field.
Scopus Journal Search
Scopus allows you to search for journals by subject area, title, and publisher. The database includes journal metrics such as citation counts and publication volume. While Scopus does not provide review time data, it helps you build a list of journals that publish in your area.
Web of Science Master Journal List
This tool allows you to search for journals by category and verify whether a journal is indexed. Indexing status matters because many institutions and funding agencies require publication in indexed journals.
PubMed Journal Search
For biomedical research, PubMed provides a journal database that includes information about indexing and subject coverage. The National Library of Medicine's research methods resources offer guidance on evaluating the quality of research publications, which can inform your journal selection process.
Journal Finder Tools
Many publishers offer journal finder tools that match your manuscript abstract to their journals. These tools help identify journals that publish in your topic area, but they do not provide review speed data. Use them to generate candidates, then apply the review speed assessment process to each candidate.
Understanding the Relationship Between Review Speed and Journal Quality
Review speed should not be the sole criterion for journal selection. A journal that reviews quickly but has poor editorial standards may not serve your research career well. Conversely, a journal with a slower review process may have a more rigorous evaluation that improves your manuscript.
Peer Review Standards
The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibilities of editors and reviewers in the peer review process. These practices emphasize fairness, confidentiality, and constructive feedback. A journal that follows these practices may take longer to review because reviewers are expected to provide thorough evaluations.
Reporting Guidelines
The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for different study types. Journals that require adherence to these guidelines may have longer review processes because authors must ensure their manuscripts meet specific reporting standards. This additional scrutiny can improve manuscript quality but extends the review timeline.
Data Management Requirements
Some journals and funding agencies require data management and sharing plans. The National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for data sharing in NIH-funded research. Journals that enforce data availability statements may require additional verification during review, which can extend the timeline.
Common Failure Patterns in Review Speed Assessment
Researchers often make predictable mistakes when assessing review speed. Recognizing these patterns helps you avoid them.
Relying on a Single Data Point
One published article's submission-to-acceptance interval does not represent the journal's typical performance. Review times vary based on reviewer availability, manuscript quality, and seasonal factors. Always sample multiple articles.
Confusing Desk Rejection with Full Review
A journal that reports a short average time to first decision may be rejecting many manuscripts without external review. If your manuscript is likely to proceed to full review, the desk rejection statistics do not apply to your situation.
Ignoring Revision Rounds
The time to first decision does not include the time required for revisions. If the journal requests major revisions, the total time to acceptance will be substantially longer than the first decision time. Consider whether your manuscript is likely to require revisions based on its current state.
Overlooking Production Time
Acceptance does not mean publication. Production time varies significantly between journals. Some journals publish accepted manuscripts online within days, while others take months. Check the journal's production timeline separately from its review timeline.
Trusting Outdated Information
Editorial boards change, submission volumes fluctuate, and review processes evolve. A journal that reviewed quickly two years ago may have a different process today. Focus on recent data and recent community reports.
Records and Measurements for Tracking Review Speed
Keeping systematic records of your journal assessment helps you make informed decisions and provides documentation for future submissions.
What to Record
For each journal you assess, record the following information:
- Journal name and publisher
- Date of assessment
- Stated review time from the journal website
- Submission and acceptance dates from at least five recent articles
- Calculated average and range of review times
- Community report findings
- Field comparison notes
- Any discrepancies between official claims and observed data
How to Use Your Records
Compare your records across journals to identify the best options for your timeline. If you have a grant deadline, prioritize journals with shorter observed review times. If your manuscript needs substantial revision, factor in additional time for revision rounds.
Updating Your Records
Review speed data changes over time. Update your records periodically, especially if you are planning a submission several months in advance. Recheck the journal website and recent articles before making a final decision.
The Role of Preprints in Managing Review Timelines
Preprint servers allow you to share your research before or during peer review. Posting a preprint does not replace peer review, but it provides a public record of your work and can help establish priority.
How Preprints Affect Review Speed
Some journals accept manuscripts that have been posted as preprints. Others do not. Check the journal's policy before posting a preprint if you plan to submit to that journal.
Preprints and Funding Requirements
Some funding agencies encourage or require preprint posting. The National Institutes of Health and other agencies have policies regarding preprint sharing. Check your funding agreement to understand any preprint requirements.
Preprints as a Risk Management Tool
If your research timeline is tight, a preprint provides a citable version of your work while peer review proceeds. This can be useful for job applications, grant proposals, and collaboration discussions.
Professional Escalation Criteria
Some situations warrant escalating your concerns about a journal's review process to institutional or professional bodies.
When to Contact the Journal
Contact the journal's editorial office if you have submitted a manuscript and the review process exceeds the journal's stated timeline by a significant margin. Many journals have a stated policy for handling overdue reviews. Ask for a status update and an estimated decision date.
When to Contact Your Institution
Your institution's research office or graduate school may have resources for addressing publication delays. If a delayed review affects your degree timeline or funding obligations, inform your advisor or research office early.
When to Contact Professional Bodies
If you suspect unethical editorial practices, such as unreasonable delays without communication or requests for inappropriate citations, you may report your concerns to the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Core Practices describe expected standards for editors and publishers.
When to Withdraw and Resubmit
If a journal's review process is excessively delayed and you have not received a decision within a reasonable timeframe, you may withdraw your manuscript and submit elsewhere. Check the journal's policy on manuscript withdrawal before taking this step. Some journals require you to request permission to withdraw.
Limitations of Review Speed Data
Review speed data has inherent limitations that affect its usefulness.
Self-Reported Data
Journal websites report their own statistics. There is no independent verification of these figures, and calculation methods vary. A journal may report a median while another reports a mean, making direct comparison misleading.
Publication Bias
Published articles represent manuscripts that were accepted. Manuscripts that were rejected or withdrawn are not included in the data. If a journal rejects many manuscripts quickly, the published articles may show longer review times than the typical submission experiences.
Seasonal Variation
Review times fluctuate throughout the year. Reviewer availability drops during holidays and summer months. A journal that reviews quickly in March may be slower in August.
Field Differences
Review norms vary by discipline. A 60-day review time may be typical in one field and unusually slow in another. Always compare against journals in your specific field.
Editorial Changes
Editorial leadership changes can alter review processes. A new editor-in-chief may implement different policies that affect review speed. Recent data is more reliable than historical data.
Safety and Regulatory Context
While review speed is primarily a practical concern, it intersects with research integrity and regulatory requirements.
Research Misconduct Considerations
The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices address research misconduct, including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. A journal that reviews too quickly may not adequately screen for these issues. A thorough review process serves an important quality control function.
Data Management Requirements
The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for managing and sharing research data. Journals that require data availability statements may need additional time to verify that data sharing requirements are met. This verification is part of the review process.
Reporting Standards
The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that improve research transparency. Journals that require adherence to these guidelines may have longer review processes because authors must ensure their manuscripts meet specific reporting standards. This additional scrutiny can improve manuscript quality but extends the review timeline.
Building a Journal Selection Strategy
Review speed is one factor in journal selection. A complete strategy considers multiple criteria and weighs them according to your specific needs.
Define Your Priorities
Before assessing journals, define what matters most for your situation. Is the review speed critical because of a deadline? Is journal prestige more important? Do you need open access? Your priorities determine how much weight to give review speed in your decision.
Create a Candidate List
Use databases and journal finder tools to create a list of 5 to 10 candidate journals that publish in your field. Include a mix of journals with different characteristics, such as high-prestige journals with slower review times and specialized journals with faster processes.
Assess Each Candidate
Apply the review speed assessment process to each candidate. Record your findings systematically. Compare the results across candidates.
Make an Informed Decision
Choose the journal that best matches your priorities. If review speed is critical, select a journal with demonstrated fast review times. If prestige matters more, accept a longer review timeline as a tradeoff.
Prepare a Backup Plan
Identify a second-choice journal before you submit. If the first journal rejects your manuscript or takes too long, you can submit to the backup without delay.
Frequently Asked Questions
How accurate are the review times listed on journal websites?
Journal websites report their own statistics without independent verification. Calculation methods vary between journals, and some journals exclude desk rejections from their reported times. Use the website data as a starting point and verify it against recent published articles.
Can I ask a journal about its review speed before submitting?
You can contact the editorial office with specific questions about review timelines. Some journals respond to these inquiries, while others do not. The response you receive may not reflect your actual experience, as review times depend on reviewer availability and manuscript quality.
Do open access journals review faster than subscription journals?
There is no consistent relationship between access model and review speed. Some open access journals have efficient review processes, while others are slow. Assess each journal individually instead of assuming a pattern based on the access model.
How many recent articles should I check to estimate review speed?
Check at least five recent articles in your field from the target journal. More articles provide a better estimate, but five gives you a reasonable range. Focus on articles published in the past year to reflect current editorial practices.
What if the journal does not publish submission and acceptance dates?
Some journals do not include these dates in their published articles. In that case, rely on the journal's stated review times and community reports. You can also contact the editorial office to ask about typical review timelines.
Does a fast review mean the journal has low standards?
Not necessarily. A fast review can indicate efficient editorial management, a well-organized reviewer pool, or a high desk rejection rate. Evaluate the journal's peer review practices and publication standards separately from its review speed.
Can I withdraw my manuscript if the review takes too long?
Most journals allow manuscript withdrawal, but some require you to request permission from the editor. Check the journal's policy before submitting. If you withdraw, inform the editor in writing and confirm that the manuscript is no longer under consideration.
How does review speed affect my chances of meeting a grant deadline?
If you need a publication to meet a grant deadline, factor in the full timeline from submission to publication, including review, revision, and production time. Choose a journal with demonstrated fast review times and check whether it publishes accepted manuscripts online before final formatting.
Using the Evidence
| Source | Best use in this topic | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Research Methods Resources | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
| EQUATOR Network | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
| Core Practices | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
Related Articles
- Bioinformatics Careers: What You Need to Know Before You Start
- Cross-Sectional Study Limitations: What You Need to Know Before You Start
- Meta-Analysis vs Peer Review: Understanding the Differences
- Peer Review Metrics: What They Are and How to Use Them
- Data Management Plan Template: A Practical Guide for Researchers
References and Further Reading
- Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
- EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
- Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
- NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
- ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
- Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
- NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
- PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.