Guide
How long does peer review take?
At journals, authors report waiting about 13 weeks on average for a first decision and about 17 weeks of review in total for papers that are accepted. That is the average across 3,500 review experiences reported between 2013 and 2016; medical journals were about twice as fast as economics and business journals. Most of the wait is not the reviewing itself: it is finding reviewers, waiting for reports and going through rounds.
Time to a first decision, by field
Huisman and Smits analysed 3,500 review experiences that authors reported on SciRev.sc between 2013 and 2016. Across fields, the first response took 13 weeks on average, the whole review of an accepted paper 17 weeks, and papers went through 2.03 review rounds on average. A desk rejection, without review, took 12 days on average.
| Field | First response | Total review (accepted papers) |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine | 8 weeks | 12 weeks |
| Public health | 9 weeks | 13 weeks |
| Natural sciences | 11 weeks | 14 weeks |
| Engineering | 13 weeks | 17 weeks |
| Psychology | 14 weeks | 20 weeks |
| Humanities | 16 weeks | 22 weeks |
| Mathematics and computer sciences | 17 weeks | 22 weeks |
| Social sciences | 17 weeks | 23 weeks |
| Economics and business | 18 weeks | 25 weeks |
| All fields | 13 weeks | 17 weeks |
From submission to acceptance
Publication histories in PubMed tell a similar story for biomedical journals. In an analysis of over 3.3 million articles, Daniel Himmelstein found that the median time from submission to acceptance has stayed around 100 days since 1981. The time from acceptance to online publication was roughly halved from the early 2000s and has stayed around 25 days since 2009.
These are times for papers that were accepted. A paper rejected after review starts the clock again at the next journal.
Why it takes so long
- Finding reviewers. Publons data showed the rate at which reviewers agreed to review invitations fall from about 0.54 in 2013 to 0.44 in 2017, so editors have to send more invitations before enough reviewers say yes.
- Writing the report. Once they agreed, reviewers took a median of 16.4 days to complete a review in the same data.
- Rounds. Two rounds on average means the author's revision and a second reading add to the first wait.
- Starting over. A rejection, even for fit rather than quality, sends the paper to a new journal and new reviewers.
How to shorten the wait
- Post a preprint so the work is public while it is reviewed.
- Pick a venue that fits the paper's scope, to avoid a desk rejection.
- Answer every reviewer comment in one revision, so a further round is not needed.
- Use a preprint review route that keeps the same reviewers across rounds.
How long it takes on Unjournal
Weeks, not months. The reviewers are researchers whose own work matches the paper's questions, each gets the two or three questions that match their expertise, anchored on the passages that matter, and the revision goes back to the same reviewers instead of new ones. Nothing is sent before you approve the shortlist.
Frequently asked questions
How long does peer review take on average?
Authors reported about 13 weeks to a first decision and 17 weeks of review in total for accepted papers, averaged across fields (SciRev data, 2013 to 2016).
Which fields have the slowest peer review?
In the same data, economics and business (18 weeks to a first response), social sciences and mathematics and computer sciences (17 weeks) were slowest; medicine (8 weeks) and public health (9 weeks) were fastest.
How long does a desk rejection take?
12 days on average, with half of cases within a week, according to authors' reports analysed by Huisman and Smits.
How long does a reviewer take to write a review?
Publons reported a median of 16.4 days to complete a review once the reviewer had agreed to do it (mean 19.1 days).
Can peer review be faster?
Yes, mostly by spending less time finding reviewers and by keeping the same reviewers across rounds. Unjournal does both, which is why its review takes weeks rather than months.
Sources
- Huisman & Smits (2017), Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective, Scientometrics: 3,500 review experiences reported on SciRev.sc, 2013 to 2016
- Himmelstein (2016): The history of publishing delays: PubMed article histories through 2015
- EASE (2018): 2018 Global State of Peer Review report released (Publons): agreement rate to review invitations 0.54 in 2013, 0.44 in 2017; median 16.4 days to complete a review