From submission to decision: the stages explained

Editorial & peer review · editorial note

Between sending a manuscript and receiving a decision there is a defined sequence of stages. Each stage has a purpose, and knowing what happens at each one makes the wait easier to interpret and the correspondence easier to understand. The process is broadly similar across journals, though the names and the exact steps vary. This page walks through the usual stages and points out what you should confirm on the journal's official pages.

Initial submission and the desk check

When a manuscript arrives, editorial staff check that it is complete and that it follows the instructions to authors. They confirm that the required files, declarations and statements are present, and they assess whether the topic fits the journal's scope. A manuscript that fails this check may be returned before any specialist reads it.

This stage is quick by design. It protects reviewers from spending time on work that has not been prepared for the journal or that plainly belongs elsewhere.

Assignment to an editor

A manuscript that passes the desk check is assigned to an editor, often an associate or section editor with relevant expertise. That editor reads it more closely and decides whether to send it for review, request changes first, or decline it. Assignment is a judgement about fit and readiness, not yet an assessment of scientific merit.

The handling editor becomes the author's main point of contact for substantive questions. Correspondence should go through the editorial office unless the journal states otherwise.

Sending out for review

If review is appropriate, the editor invites reviewers with the right background. Invitations are sometimes declined, so finding willing reviewers can take time. Reviewers then read the manuscript and submit reports, usually with a recommendation. Two independent reports are common, and a third may be sought if the first two disagree.

This is normally the longest stage. Its length depends on how quickly suitable reviewers can be found and how much time they need, and it cannot be compressed without weakening the assessment.

Decision and revision

Once reports are in, the editor weighs them and reaches a decision. Common outcomes are acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection. A revision request is not a promise of acceptance, but it does mean the editor sees potential. Authors usually receive a deadline and are asked to answer each reviewer point in turn.

Revised manuscripts may return to the same reviewers or to the editor alone, depending on the journal and the extent of the changes. Further rounds of revision are possible, and they are more common in rigorous journals than authors sometimes expect.

The stages at a glance

The table below sets out the typical sequence and what each stage decides. Journals may add, merge or rename stages, so the authoritative description is the one the journal publishes.

Stage	What happens	What it decides
Submission	Files and declarations are checked	Whether the paper is complete
Desk assessment	Scope and readiness are judged	Whether it goes to review
Review	Independent experts assess the work	The strength of the evidence
Revision	Authors respond to the reports	Whether concerns are resolved
Final decision	The editor concludes the case	Acceptance or rejection

How long each stage takes

Timelines vary enormously between journals and between individual manuscripts. Desk checks can be quick, while review depends on the availability of unpaid experts. Production, once a paper is accepted, is usually more predictable, though proofs still need checking by the author.

Authors can help by preparing a complete submission, providing accurate contact details and responding to requests promptly. Delay is most often caused by missing information or slow responses rather than by the science itself.

What to confirm on the official pages

Before you submit, check how the journal describes its own process, because the steps and their names differ. The following points are worth confirming.

What the journal's stated review process involves.
How decisions and revision requests are communicated.
Whether indicative timelines are published.
How to withdraw a manuscript if you need to.
What the appeal route is, and its limits.

Responding well at each stage

The most useful habit is to treat each stage as a conversation. Answer requests for information promptly, keep a calm tone, and address reviewer points with evidence. A well-organised response, with each point answered in order, makes the editor's task easier and your case stronger.

Understanding the sequence removes much of the anxiety from the waiting period, because you can tell which stage your manuscript has reached and what it means. The exact process and timelines are set by the publisher, so confirm the current details on the journal's official pages rather than relying on a general account such as this one.

The path from submission to decision runs through a desk check, assignment, independent review, revision and a final editorial judgement. Knowing what each stage is for helps you interpret correspondence and respond constructively. The specific steps and timelines are set by the publisher, so check the journal's official pages for the current description of its process.

Research integrity. Sound science rests on honest reporting, transparent methods and respect for ethical standards. Nothing on this site replaces the journal’s official instructions or the policies of your institution. When in doubt, confirm the current requirements with the editorial office and check the journal’s official pages.