Return to Answer

The answer varies from field to field. As a former journal publisher the timeline for physics journals is:

• A few days - if the journal acknowledges receipt of your paper (not every journal does this).
• A few days - Editorial "shuffling" where your paper bounces between editorial board members until one of them agrees to handle it. This might take a few days to a week.
• Reviewer invited - typically within two weeks.
• Review complete - this is the largest variance part because some reviewers agree to review but don't actually submit one, some reviewers decline, some reviewers never respond to the invitation, and so on. My personal guideline was to invite new reviewers if the previous reviewer had gone 7 days without answering the invitation. Each time I invite new reviewers I budget ~30 days before I receive a review. It can be faster than this but taking longer is more common. Order of magnitude estimate for the entire stage would be 50-60 days.
• Decision made - depends on the editor, but less than a week after the final review is submitted is typical.

This can vary a lot between fields however (math for example takes much longer). There's also a large variation even within physics, depending on how the journal is set up. Some journals have all submissions directed to the editor-in-chief who then assigns an editorial board member. Other journals might have the journal office decide which board member to handle the paper. Yet others might say, we wait for 10 papers, and then send them all to the editor-in-chief in batches.

For physics I suggest contacting the journal asking for a status update if:

1. If your paper goes more than ~2 weeks with no sign of it getting to the "reviewer invited" stage. It's possible the paper got lost in the system, the handling editor needs to be prodded, etc.
2. If your paper is in the "reviewer invited" stage for more than ~6 weeks. You might spur the editor to stop waiting and invite more reviewers. At worst you might get a reply such as "we invited X reviewers but none of them responded".
3. If your paper is in the "review complete" stage for more than ~2 weeks. This could mean the editor is slow at submitting a decision, or it could mean the editor is waiting for more reviewers. You might get an early peek at the likely decision if the editor decides to send you the reviews that have already been received.

For other fields, this will need to be adapted depending on how long it takes to review on average. If unsure about the estimated time, I'd check with my peers.

The person to contact varies depending on the journal. If you're in direct contact with a member of the editorial board (he or she acknowledged receiving your paper, asked for clarifications, etc), that's the person to write to. Otherwise, write to the journal office. Most journals will have an email address, and the person answering that email is an employee of the publisher. He or she will know who to pass the query to.

The answer varies from field to field. As a former journal publisher the timeline for physics journals is:

• A few days: The journal acknowledges receipt of your paper (not every journal does this).
• A few days: Editorial “shuffling” where your paper bounces between editorial board members until one of them agrees to handle it. This might take a few days to a week.
• Reviewer invited: Typically within two weeks.
• Review complete: This is the largest variance part because some reviewers agree to review but don’t actually submit one, some reviewers decline, some reviewers never respond to the invitation, and so on. My personal guideline was to invite new reviewers if the previous reviewer had gone seven days without answering the invitation. Each time I invite new reviewers, I budget thirty days before I receive a review. It can be faster than this but taking longer is more common. Order of magnitude estimate for the entire stage would be 50–60 days.
• Decision made: Depends on the editor, but less than a week after the final review is submitted is typical.

This can vary a lot between fields however (math for example takes much longer). There’s also a large variation even within physics, depending on how the journal is set up. Some journals have all submissions directed to the editor-in-chief who then assigns an editorial board member. Other journals might have the journal office decide which board member to handle the paper. Yet others might say, we wait for ten papers, and then send them all to the editor-in-chief in batches.

For physics I suggest contacting the journal asking for a status update if:

1. If your paper goes more than two weeks with no sign of it getting to the reviewer invited stage. It’s possible the paper got lost in the system, the handling editor needs to be prodded, etc.
2. If your paper is in the reviewer invited stage for more than six weeks. You might spur the editor to stop waiting and invite more reviewers. At worst you might get a reply such as: “We invited X reviewers but none of them responded.”
3. If your paper is in the review complete stage for more than two weeks. This could mean the editor is slow at submitting a decision, or it could mean the editor is waiting for more reviewers. You might get an early peek at the likely decision if the editor decides to send you the reviews that have already been received.

For other fields, this will need to be adapted depending on how long it takes to review on average. If unsure about the estimated time, I’d check with my peers.

The person to contact varies depending on the journal. If you’re in direct contact with a member of the editorial board (he or she acknowledged receiving your paper, asked for clarifications, etc), that’s the person to write to. Otherwise, write to the journal office. Most journals will have an email address, and the person answering that email is an employee of the publisher. He or she will know who to pass the query to.

The answer varies from field to field. As a former journal publisher the timeline for physics journals is:

• A few days - if the journal acknowledges receipt of your paper (not every journal does this).
• A few days - Editorial "shuffling" where your paper bounces between editorial board members until one of them agrees to handle it. This might take a few days to a week.
• Reviewer invited - typically within two weeks.
• Review complete - this is the largest variance part because some reviewers agree to review but don't actually submit one, some reviewers decline, some reviewers never respond to the invitation, and so on. My personal guideline was to invite new reviewers if the previous reviewer had gone 7 days without answering the invitation. Each time I invite new reviewers I budget ~30 days before I receive a review. It can be faster than this but taking longer is more common. Order of magnitude estimate would be 50-60 days.
• Decision made - depends on the editor, but less than a week after the final review is submitted is typical.

This can vary a lot between fields however (math for example takes much longer). There's also a large variation even within physics, depending on how the journal is set up. Some journals have all submissions directed to the editor-in-chief who then assigns an editorial board member. Other journals might have the journal office decide which board member to handle the paper. Yet others might say, we wait for 10 papers, and then send them all to the editor-in-chief in batches.

For physics I suggest contacting the journal asking for a status update if:

1. If your paper goes more than ~2 weeks with no sign of it getting to the "reviewer invited" stage. It's possible the paper got lost in the system, the handling editor needs to be prodded, etc.
2. If your paper is in the "reviewer invited" stage for more than ~6 weeks. You might spur the editor to stop waiting and invite more reviewers. At worst you might get a reply such as "we invited X reviewers but none of them responded".
3. If your paper is in the "review complete" stage for more than ~2 weeks. This could mean the editor is slow at submitting a decision, or it could mean the editor is waiting for more reviewers. You might get an early peek at the likely decision if the editor decides to send you the reviews that have already been received.

For other fields, this will need to be adapted depending on how long it takes to review on average. If unsure about the estimated time, I'd check with my peers.

The person to contact varies depending on the journal. If you're in direct contact with a member of the editorial board (he or she acknowledged receiving your paper, asked for clarifications, etc), that's the person to write to. Otherwise, write to the journal office. Most journals will have an email address, and the person answering that email is an employee of the publisher. He or she will know who to pass the query to.

The answer varies from field to field. As a former journal publisher the timeline for physics journals is:

• A few days - if the journal acknowledges receipt of your paper (not every journal does this).
• A few days - Editorial "shuffling" where your paper bounces between editorial board members until one of them agrees to handle it. This might take a few days to a week.
• Reviewer invited - typically within two weeks.
• Review complete - this is the largest variance part because some reviewers agree to review but don't actually submit one, some reviewers decline, some reviewers never respond to the invitation, and so on. My personal guideline was to invite new reviewers if the previous reviewer had gone 7 days without answering the invitation. Each time I invite new reviewers I budget ~30 days before I receive a review. It can be faster than this but taking longer is more common. Order of magnitude estimate for the entire stage would be 50-60 days.
• Decision made - depends on the editor, but less than a week after the final review is submitted is typical.

This can vary a lot between fields however (math for example takes much longer). There's also a large variation even within physics, depending on how the journal is set up. Some journals have all submissions directed to the editor-in-chief who then assigns an editorial board member. Other journals might have the journal office decide which board member to handle the paper. Yet others might say, we wait for 10 papers, and then send them all to the editor-in-chief in batches.

For physics I suggest contacting the journal asking for a status update if:

1. If your paper goes more than ~2 weeks with no sign of it getting to the "reviewer invited" stage. It's possible the paper got lost in the system, the handling editor needs to be prodded, etc.
2. If your paper is in the "reviewer invited" stage for more than ~6 weeks. You might spur the editor to stop waiting and invite more reviewers. At worst you might get a reply such as "we invited X reviewers but none of them responded".
3. If your paper is in the "review complete" stage for more than ~2 weeks. This could mean the editor is slow at submitting a decision, or it could mean the editor is waiting for more reviewers. You might get an early peek at the likely decision if the editor decides to send you the reviews that have already been received.

For other fields, this will need to be adapted depending on how long it takes to review on average. If unsure about the estimated time, I'd check with my peers.

The person to contact varies depending on the journal. If you're in direct contact with a member of the editorial board (he or she acknowledged receiving your paper, asked for clarifications, etc), that's the person to write to. Otherwise, write to the journal office. Most journals will have an email address, and the person answering that email is an employee of the publisher. He or she will know who to pass the query to.

As a former journal publisher the timeline is:

• A few days - if the journal acknowledges receipt of your paper (not every journal does this).

• A few days - Editorial "shuffling" where your paper bounces between editorial board members until one of them agrees to handle it. This might take a few days to a week.

• Reviewer invited - typically within two weeks.

• Review complete - this is the largest variance part because some reviewers agree to review but don't actually submit one, some reviewers decline, some reviewers never respond to the invitation, and so on. My personal guideline was to invite new reviewers if the previous reviewer had gone 7 days without answering the invitation. Each time I invite new reviewers I budget ~30 days before I receive a review. It can be faster than this but taking longer is more common. Order of magnitude estimate would be 50-60 days.

• Decision made - depends on the editor, but less than a week after the final review is submitted is typical.

There's a large variation in all these however, depending on how the journal is set up. Some journals have all submissions directed to the editor-in-chief who then assigns an editorial board member. Other journals might have the journal office decide which board member to handle the paper. Yet others might say, we wait for 10 papers, and then send them all to the editor-in-chief in batches.

I suggest contacting the journal asking for a status update if:

The answer varies from field to field. As a former journal publisher the timeline for physics journals is:

• A few days - if the journal acknowledges receipt of your paper (not every journal does this).
• A few days - Editorial "shuffling" where your paper bounces between editorial board members until one of them agrees to handle it. This might take a few days to a week.
• Reviewer invited - typically within two weeks.
• Review complete - this is the largest variance part because some reviewers agree to review but don't actually submit one, some reviewers decline, some reviewers never respond to the invitation, and so on. My personal guideline was to invite new reviewers if the previous reviewer had gone 7 days without answering the invitation. Each time I invite new reviewers I budget ~30 days before I receive a review. It can be faster than this but taking longer is more common. Order of magnitude estimate would be 50-60 days.
• Decision made - depends on the editor, but less than a week after the final review is submitted is typical.

This can vary a lot between fields however (math for example takes much longer). There's also a large variation even within physics, depending on how the journal is set up. Some journals have all submissions directed to the editor-in-chief who then assigns an editorial board member. Other journals might have the journal office decide which board member to handle the paper. Yet others might say, we wait for 10 papers, and then send them all to the editor-in-chief in batches.

For physics I suggest contacting the journal asking for a status update if:

For other fields, this will need to be adapted depending on how long it takes to review on average. If unsure about the estimated time, I'd check with my peers.