Submitting a scholarly manuscript for publication often involves a long period of waiting for a decision. The journal’s status tracker displays various terms marking the manuscript’s progress. “Under Review” is a common status update, yet it is often misunderstood by authors. This status indicates a significant step forward in the editorial process, but it does not guarantee the ultimate outcome. Understanding the precise meaning of this status and the mechanics of peer review is important for managing expectations.
What “Under Review” Actually Means
The status “Under Review” signifies that a manuscript has successfully passed the initial administrative and editorial checks performed by the journal office. This means the submission was complete, adhered to formatting guidelines, and was deemed suitable for the journal’s scope by the editor. The manuscript has now been assigned to external subject-matter experts, known as peer reviewers, who are responsible for critically evaluating the content.
This status confirms the manuscript is outside the editor’s immediate control. Reviewers are assessing its quality, rigor, novelty, scientific merit, and methodological soundness. This indicates the formal, independent scrutiny stage has officially begun, confirming the evaluation process is actively underway.
Statuses That Precede Peer Review
Before reaching the “Under Review” stage, a manuscript navigates several administrative checkpoints. The initial status is typically “Manuscript Submitted,” confirming successful file transfer. This is followed by “Awaiting Administrative Check,” where staff verify formatting and completeness.
Next, the status changes to “With Editor,” meaning a dedicated editor is responsible for the manuscript. This editor conducts an initial qualitative assessment, known as the desk review, to determine if the paper fits the journal’s audience and standards. Manuscripts that fail this screen are subject to “Desk Rejection,” meaning they are rejected without external peer review. Achieving “Under Review” confirms the paper has successfully overcome these preliminary hurdles.
The Peer Review Process: What Happens During Review
While the manuscript is “Under Review,” external experts provide detailed feedback to the editor. Typically, two to four reviewers are invited, and the status changes only after a sufficient number accept the invitation. Reviewers assess several criteria, often under a system of blinded review to ensure unbiased evaluation.
Reviewers examine:
- The originality of the research question
- The appropriateness of the methodology used
- The clarity of the presentation
- The data interpretation and validity of conclusions
- The overall contribution to existing literature
They submit a comprehensive report recommending acceptance, revision, or rejection. This process usually takes several weeks or months, depending on the field and reviewer availability.
Why “Under Review” Does Not Mean Acceptance
“Under Review” confirms the commencement of the evaluation, not its successful conclusion. This status provides no guarantee of publication, as the manuscript is now subjected to intense scrutiny by independent specialists. Reviewers’ reports often highlight methodological flaws, a lack of novelty, or misalignment with the journal’s scope that the initial desk review missed.
Immediate acceptance is highly improbable due to the statistical reality of scholarly publishing. Rejection rates for many high-impact journals range from 75% to over 90%. A significant number of rejections occur even after the manuscript has been sent for peer review. The status confirms the paper survived the initial screening, but independent evaluation frequently leads to a negative recommendation.
Potential Outcomes After Review
Once reviewers submit their reports, the editor considers all feedback before issuing a final decision, often changing the status to “Decision in Process.” There are four primary outcomes after the external peer review phase.
Outright acceptance is the rarest decision, reserved for exceptional manuscripts requiring no changes. The most common decisions involve a request for revisions, viewed as a positive step indicating publication potential.
- Minor Revisions: The paper is nearly acceptable, requiring only small corrections and clarifications.
- Major Revisions: Substantial work is needed, such as additional experiments or significant restructuring, before reconsideration.
The final possibility is rejection post-review. This occurs when reviewers identify flaws that cannot be reasonably corrected, or if the paper’s contribution is insufficient for the journal.
Managing the Waiting Period
The time a manuscript spends under review varies widely, typically ranging from four to twelve weeks, though some fields may take six months or longer. Authors should manage expectations by understanding the typical timelines for their target journal. It is inadvisable to contact the editorial office immediately after the status changes to “Under Review,” as the process has just begun.
A polite inquiry is appropriate only if the expected review time has been significantly exceeded. When the review phase concludes, the status often briefly shifts to “Awaiting Editor Decision.” This signals that the editor is synthesizing the reviewer reports to finalize the outcome and that the official decision letter is imminent.