# What to Do When a Journal's Peer Review Is Taking Too Long

## Quick Answer

- Check the journal's stated review timeline first, then wait at least two weeks past that date before contacting the editorial office.
- Send a polite status inquiry to the assigned editor, not the journal's general inbox, and include your manuscript ID in the subject line.
- Withdrawing a manuscript is a serious decision that can affect your reputation, so exhaust all inquiry options and document every communication before making that choice.

## Understanding Peer Review Timelines

Peer review is the formal process by which independent experts evaluate a manuscript before publication. The Committee on Publication Ethics identifies peer review as one of the core practices that journals must handle fairly and transparently. Journals differ widely in how long this process takes, and no universal standard exists for what constitutes an acceptable delay.

The review process typically involves several stages. After you submit your manuscript, the editor first assesses whether it fits the journal's scope and meets basic quality standards. This initial screening can take days or weeks. If the manuscript passes, the editor invites reviewers, who may accept or decline the invitation. Once reviewers agree, they need time to read the manuscript and write their assessments. The editor then collects the reviews and makes a decision.

Each of these stages can introduce delays. A reviewer might accept the invitation but take longer than expected to submit their report. The editor might need to invite additional reviewers if the first choices decline. The manuscript might go through multiple rounds of revision, each requiring new review cycles. Understanding these stages helps you assess whether your manuscript is experiencing a normal delay or an unusual one.

The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources gateway provides access to authoritative biomedical books and research-method references that describe the scholarly publishing process in detail. These resources can help you understand what happens behind the scenes during peer review and what reasonable expectations look like.

## At a Glance

| Scenario | Recommended Action | Timeframe |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Within the journal's stated review period | Wait patiently, do not contact the editor | No action needed |
| Past the stated review period by 2 to 4 weeks | Send a polite status inquiry to the editor | One inquiry, then wait 2 weeks |
| No response to your first inquiry after 2 weeks | Send a second inquiry with a firmer tone | One follow-up, then wait 2 weeks |
| No response after two inquiries or a clear rejection | Consider withdrawal and submit elsewhere | Document everything first |

## How Long Should You Wait Before Contacting the Editor

The first step is to determine the journal's stated review timeline. Most journals publish this information on their website, often in the "For Authors" or "Journal Information" section. Some journals provide average times from submission to first decision, while others give ranges for each stage of the process. The EQUATOR Network emphasizes that transparent reporting is a core value in scholarly publishing, and many journals apply this principle to their editorial processes by publishing their expected timelines.

If the journal states an average review time of 60 days, you should not expect a decision before that point. Contacting the editor earlier than the stated timeline can create a negative impression. Editors manage many manuscripts simultaneously, and repeated early inquiries suggest that you do not understand how the process works.

A reasonable approach is to wait until the stated timeline has passed, then add a buffer of two to four weeks. This buffer accounts for minor delays that are common in editorial offices. Reviewers may request extensions, editors may be traveling, or administrative issues may slow down the process. These delays are normal and do not indicate a problem with your manuscript.

The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices describe the responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors in the peer review process. These practices emphasize that peer review should be conducted fairly and that all parties should communicate professionally. Your status inquiry should reflect this professional standard.

## How to Check Your Manuscript Status

Most journals provide an online submission system where you can check your manuscript's status at any time. These systems typically show whether your manuscript is with the editor, out for review, or in a decision stage. Checking this system is the least intrusive way to monitor your manuscript's progress.

The status descriptions vary by journal and submission system. Common statuses include "Submitted," "With Editor," "Under Review," "Decision in Process," and "Completed." Each status indicates a different stage of the process. "Under Review" means the editor has invited reviewers and is waiting for their reports. "Decision in Process" means the editor has received the reviews and is making a decision.

If the status has not changed for an extended period, this may indicate a problem. For example, a manuscript stuck at "With Editor" for several months might mean the editor has not yet decided whether to send it for review. A manuscript stuck at "Under Review" for a very long time might mean a reviewer has not submitted their report.

The National Institutes of Health grants portal provides context on how official review processes work in the federal funding context. While grant review differs from journal peer review, the underlying principle is the same: review processes involve multiple stages, and delays can occur at any point. Understanding this parallel can help you maintain realistic expectations.

## Writing a Professional Status Inquiry

When you decide to contact the editor, your message should be concise, professional, and focused. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices emphasize that all parties in the publication process should communicate respectfully and constructively. Your inquiry should reflect this standard.

Start with a clear subject line that includes your manuscript ID number. Editors handle many manuscripts and need to identify yours quickly. A subject line such as "Status Inquiry for Manuscript ID 12345" is clear and professional.

In the body of your message, state who you are, what manuscript you are asking about, and when you submitted it. Briefly note that you are checking on the status because the review period has exceeded the journal's stated timeline. Ask whether the editor can provide an estimated decision date or an update on the review progress.

Do not express frustration or make demands. Do not threaten to withdraw your manuscript unless you are prepared to follow through. Do not copy multiple editors or journal staff members on your inquiry. Address your message to the editor who is handling your manuscript, which is typically listed in the submission system or in your initial acknowledgment email.

Here is a template you can adapt:

Subject: Status Inquiry for Manuscript ID 12345

Dear Dr. [Editor Name],

I submitted my manuscript titled "[Manuscript Title]" to [Journal Name] on [Submission Date]. The journal's website indicates an average review time of [X] weeks. I am writing to ask whether you can provide an update on the review progress or an estimated decision date.

Thank you for your time and for handling our manuscript.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Affiliation]
[Your Contact Information]

## What to Do If You Receive No Response

If you send a status inquiry and receive no response within two weeks, you have several options. The first is to send a follow-up inquiry. Your follow-up should reference your previous message and politely ask for an update. You might also try contacting a different person in the editorial office, such as the managing editor or editorial assistant, if the editor has not responded.

The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices describe the responsibilities of journals in handling manuscripts and communicating with authors. A journal that does not respond to reasonable author inquiries is not meeting these expectations. However, you should give the journal the benefit of the doubt initially, as editorial offices can be understaffed or overwhelmed.

If your second inquiry also goes unanswered, you face a more difficult decision. You can continue to wait, you can escalate your inquiry to the publisher, or you can consider withdrawing your manuscript. Each option has tradeoffs that you should weigh carefully.

Escalating to the publisher is appropriate when you believe the journal is not functioning properly. Most journals are published by larger organizations that have oversight responsibilities. The publisher's website typically lists contact information for their editorial or customer service departments. Your message to the publisher should describe your attempts to contact the editor and ask for assistance in resolving the situation.

## When and How to Withdraw a Manuscript

Withdrawing a manuscript is a significant decision that should not be made lightly. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices address the responsibilities of authors in the publication process, including the obligation to manage manuscripts responsibly. Withdrawing a manuscript that is under review can create complications for the journal and for your reputation.

Before withdrawing, consider whether the delay is truly unreasonable. Some journals have review processes that legitimately take six months or longer, particularly for complex manuscripts or specialized fields. If the journal's stated timeline is long, you should respect that timeline even if it feels excessive.

You should also consider the consequences of withdrawal. If you withdraw and submit the manuscript elsewhere, the new journal will likely ask whether the manuscript has been submitted to other journals. You must disclose the previous submission and withdrawal. Some journals view multiple submissions negatively, even if you withdrew before acceptance.

If you decide to withdraw, send a formal withdrawal request to the editor. Your message should state clearly that you are withdrawing the manuscript, thank the editor for their time, and confirm that you will not submit the manuscript elsewhere until the withdrawal is confirmed. The editor should confirm the withdrawal in writing.

The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources gateway includes references on research ethics and publication practices. These resources can help you understand the norms and expectations around manuscript withdrawal and duplicate submission.

## How to Choose a Journal That Will Not Delay Your Manuscript

The best way to avoid a slow review process is to choose a journal with a reputation for efficiency. The EQUATOR Network provides guidance on selecting appropriate reporting guidelines for your research, which can help you identify journals that value transparent and rigorous reporting. Journals that emphasize reporting quality often have more organized editorial processes.

When evaluating a journal, consider several factors. First, look at the journal's stated review timeline. Journals that publish this information are typically more transparent about their processes. Second, check the journal's recent publication dates. If the journal publishes articles with submission dates and acceptance dates, you can estimate the actual review time. Third, ask colleagues in your field about their experiences with the journal. Word of mouth remains one of the most reliable sources of information about journal efficiency.

The National Institutes of Health grants portal provides guidance on selecting appropriate funding opportunities, which parallels the process of selecting a journal. In both cases, you should match your work to the right venue, understand the requirements, and plan for the timeline.

Your ORCID record can also play a role in the submission process. The ORCID for Researchers page explains how maintaining an accurate researcher profile supports your scholarly activities. Some journals use ORCID to verify author identity and streamline the submission process. An up-to-date ORCID record can help you avoid delays related to identity verification.

## Managing Your Time While Waiting for a Decision

Waiting for a peer review decision can be stressful, especially when you have deadlines for grants, promotions, or other professional obligations. The National Institutes of Health grants portal describes how grant applications are reviewed and how timelines work in the federal funding context. Understanding these parallel processes can help you plan your research and publication activities more effectively.

One practical strategy is to work on other projects while your manuscript is under review. This could include preparing additional experiments, analyzing existing data, or drafting other manuscripts. The National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for managing research data throughout the research lifecycle. Following these expectations can help you make productive use of waiting time.

Another strategy is to plan for multiple possible outcomes. If your manuscript is accepted, you will need to respond to reviewer comments and prepare a revision. If it is rejected, you will need to revise and submit elsewhere. Preparing for both outcomes in advance can reduce the stress of waiting.

You should also keep careful records of your submission and all communications with the journal. The National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy emphasizes the importance of documenting research activities and decisions. Your submission records should include the submission date, the manuscript ID, the journal's stated timeline, and copies of all correspondence.

## Common Failure Patterns in Slow Peer Review

Several recurring patterns explain why manuscripts get stuck in peer review. Recognizing these patterns can help you assess your situation and decide on an appropriate response.

The first pattern is reviewer unresponsiveness. A reviewer accepts the invitation but never submits a report. The editor may not realize this until the deadline passes, then must invite a replacement reviewer. This process can add weeks or months to the review timeline.

The second pattern is editorial indecision. The editor receives the reviews but cannot decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions. This can happen when reviews are conflicting or when the editor lacks expertise in the manuscript's topic. The manuscript may sit in limbo while the editor seeks additional advice.

The third pattern is administrative delay. The editorial office may be understaffed, the submission system may malfunction, or the editor may be on extended leave. These delays are frustrating but usually resolve once the administrative issue is addressed.

The fourth pattern is a lost manuscript. In rare cases, manuscripts are lost in the submission system or assigned to the wrong editor. If your status inquiry reveals that the editor has no record of your manuscript, you should provide your submission confirmation and ask them to investigate.

The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices describe the standards that journals should meet in handling manuscripts. If you encounter any of these failure patterns, you should document the situation and consider whether the journal is meeting its ethical obligations.

## Professional Escalation Criteria

You should escalate your concerns when the journal fails to respond to reasonable inquiries or when the delay becomes clearly unreasonable. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices provide a framework for understanding what constitutes ethical behavior in publication. A journal that ignores author inquiries or fails to provide decisions in a reasonable timeframe is not meeting these standards.

The first escalation step is to contact the publisher. Most journals are published by organizations that have editorial oversight responsibilities. The publisher may be able to intervene and resolve the situation.

The second escalation step is to consider whether the journal is legitimate. Some journals operate with minimal editorial oversight and do not provide genuine peer review. The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources gateway includes references on evaluating journals and avoiding predatory publishing practices. If you suspect the journal is not legitimate, you should withdraw your manuscript and submit elsewhere.

The third escalation step is to report the journal to relevant oversight bodies. The Committee on Publication Ethics provides a process for reporting concerns about journal practices. Your report should include documentation of your submission, your inquiries, and the journal's responses or lack thereof.

## Records and Measurements

Maintaining accurate records is essential when you are dealing with a slow peer review process. Your records should include the following information:

- The date you submitted the manuscript
- The manuscript ID number
- The journal's stated review timeline
- The date you first checked the manuscript status
- The dates and content of all status inquiries
- The dates and content of all journal responses
- Any changes in manuscript status in the submission system

The National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy emphasizes the importance of documenting research activities and decisions. While this policy applies to research data, the same principle applies to your publication activities. Good records help you make informed decisions and provide evidence if you need to escalate your concerns.

You should also track the time between each stage of the review process. For example, note when your manuscript moved from "With Editor" to "Under Review" and how long it has been in each stage. This information helps you assess whether the delay is normal or unusual.

## Welfare and Professional Reputation Considerations

Your professional reputation is one of your most valuable assets in academic and research careers. The ORCID for Researchers page explains how maintaining an accurate researcher profile supports your professional identity and scholarly activities. Your publication record is a key component of this identity.

A slow peer review process can affect your reputation in several ways. If you withdraw a manuscript and submit it elsewhere, the new journal may view this negatively. If you complain publicly about a journal, you may damage your relationship with editors and reviewers. If you submit the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously, you may be accused of duplicate submission, which is a serious ethical violation.

The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices address the responsibilities of authors in the publication process. These responsibilities include managing manuscripts responsibly, disclosing conflicts of interest, and following journal policies. Maintaining a professional approach throughout the peer review process protects your reputation and supports your long-term career goals.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### How long should I wait before contacting the editor about my manuscript?

Wait until the journal's stated review timeline has passed, then add a buffer of two to four weeks. If the journal states an average review time of 60 days, wait at least 74 to 88 days before contacting the editor. Contacting earlier may create a negative impression.

### What should I include in a status inquiry email?

Include your manuscript ID number in the subject line, state your name and affiliation, identify the manuscript by title, note the submission date, and reference the journal's stated review timeline. Ask for an update on the review progress or an estimated decision date. Keep the message concise and professional.

### Can I withdraw my manuscript if the review is taking too long?

Yes, you can withdraw, but this is a serious decision. Before withdrawing, send at least two status inquiries and wait two weeks after each for a response. If the journal does not respond or the delay is clearly unreasonable, you can request withdrawal in writing. The editor should confirm the withdrawal.

### Will withdrawing my manuscript hurt my reputation?

Withdrawal can affect your reputation if it happens frequently or if you submit the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously. Most journals ask whether a manuscript has been submitted elsewhere, and you must disclose previous submissions and withdrawals. Withdrawing once for a legitimate reason is generally acceptable.

### How can I tell if a journal has a fast review process?

Check the journal's stated review timeline on its website, look at recent articles for submission and acceptance dates, and ask colleagues about their experiences. Journals that publish their timelines and follow them consistently are more likely to provide efficient reviews.

### What should I do if the editor does not respond to my inquiries?

Send a follow-up inquiry after two weeks, then consider contacting the publisher if you still receive no response. Document all your communications. If the journal continues to ignore you, you may need to withdraw your manuscript and submit elsewhere.

### Is it acceptable to submit my manuscript to another journal while it is under review?

No, simultaneous submission to multiple journals is a serious ethical violation. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices address this issue. You must wait for a decision or formally withdraw your manuscript before submitting it elsewhere.

### How can I use my ORCID record to support my publication activities?

Maintain an accurate ORCID record that includes your affiliations, publications, and other scholarly activities. Some journals use ORCID to verify author identity during submission. An up-to-date record can help streamline the submission process and support your professional identity.

## Using the Evidence

| Source | Best use in this topic | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| [Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
| [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
| [Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |

## Related Articles

- [Data Management Plan Template: A Practical Guide for Researchers](/blog/guides/data-management-plan-template-a-practical-guide-for-researchers)
- [Responding to Peer Review: A Structured Revision and Response Process](/blog/miscellaneous/responding-to-peer-review-a-structured-revision-and-response-process)
- [Protein Synthesis Step By Step](/blog/guides/protein-synthesis-step-by-step)
- [Meta-Analysis vs Peer Review: Understanding the Differences](/blog/guides/meta-analysis-vs-peer-review-understanding-the-differences)
- [Peer Review Metrics: What They Are and How to Use Them](/blog/guides/peer-review-metrics-what-they-are-and-how-to-use-them)

## References and Further Reading

- [Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books). National Library of Medicine.
- [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/). EQUATOR Network.
- [Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). Committee on Publication Ethics.
- [NIH Grants and Funding](https://grants.nih.gov/). National Institutes of Health.
- [ORCID for Researchers](https://info.orcid.org/researchers). ORCID.
- [Data Management and Sharing Policy](https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy). National Institutes of Health.
- [NCBI Literature Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). National Center for Biotechnology Information.
- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). National Library of Medicine.

> This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.