After you submit a manuscript, it moves through several editorial checkpoints before a final decision. This guide explains the peer review process stages, decodes common journal submission status labels, and shows what to record, when to follow up, and how to respond to changes without guessing.
Overview
Journal submission is not a single event but a sequence of checks and decisions. The exact order and wording vary by publisher, journal, article type, and submission platform, but the underlying workflow is often similar.
- Technical screening: The editorial office checks whether the files, declarations, metadata, and submission details are complete.
- Editorial assessment: An editor considers whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and meets its basic scholarly and presentation requirements.
- Reviewer selection: The handling editor invites suitable peer reviewers and waits for enough invitations to be accepted.
- Peer review: Reviewers assess the manuscript and submit comments or recommendations.
- Editorial decision: The editor weighs the reports, the manuscript, and the journal’s policies before issuing a decision.
- Revision or production: A revision returns to editorial assessment or review; an accepted paper moves into copyediting, typesetting, proofing, and publication preparation.
A status label does not always identify one precise action. For example, “under review” may refer to reviewer invitations, active review, or an internal assessment, depending on the platform. Treat the label as a general signal and use the journal’s author guidelines or editorial office for clarification when necessary.
What to track
A simple submission log helps you distinguish a normal delay from an administrative problem. Record the following information when you submit:
- Journal and manuscript details: Journal title, manuscript title, article type, corresponding author, and submission or manuscript ID.
- Key dates: Submission date, technical-check completion, editor assignment, reviewer invitations, decision dates, revision deadlines, and acceptance date.
- Current status: Copy the exact wording shown in the submission system rather than paraphrasing it. Note the date and time you observed the change.
- Files and declarations: Keep a final copy of the submitted manuscript, figures, supplementary files, cover letter, conflict-of-interest statement, data statement, and any permissions documentation.
- Correspondence: Save editorial emails, requests for clarification, reviewer comments, decision letters, and your replies in one location.
- Next action: Write down what you must do, who is responsible, and the applicable deadline.
Before submission, it is useful to compare your files against a research paper formatting checklist. You can also review the DOI and ORCID metadata audit to reduce inconsistencies in author names, affiliations, identifiers, and article information.
Common status meanings
| Status label | What it commonly indicates | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Submitted | The system has received the manuscript, but initial processing may not be complete. | Check that all files and required fields were accepted. |
| Technical check | Staff are reviewing completeness, file quality, formatting, or required declarations. | Respond promptly if the system or office requests corrections. |
| With editor | An editor is assessing the submission or deciding how to handle it. | Usually wait unless there is a material issue with the submission. |
| Reviewer invited | The editor has begun seeking peer reviewers. | Expect the status to remain unchanged while invitations are considered. |
| Under review | The manuscript is in an editorial or external review stage; the precise meaning varies. | Monitor the system and avoid interpreting the label as a final recommendation. |
| Required reviews complete | The platform has received the expected number of reviews or reports. | The editor may still need time to assess the reports. |
| Decision in process | An editorial decision is being prepared or recorded. | Wait for the formal decision letter rather than relying on the status alone. |
| Revision requested | The journal is inviting changes before further consideration. | Read the decision letter carefully and confirm the deadline. |
| Accept | The manuscript has passed the journal’s editorial process. | Watch for production instructions, publication forms, and proofs. |
| Reject | The journal will not publish the manuscript in its current submission. | Read the editor’s explanation before deciding whether to revise or submit elsewhere. |
These are practical interpretations, not universal definitions. A journal may use different labels, combine stages, or display a status before the underlying action is complete.
Cadence and checkpoints
Check the submission system at a sensible interval rather than refreshing it repeatedly. A weekly or fortnightly review may be reasonable for an active submission, while a less frequent check can be sufficient when no deadline is approaching. The right cadence depends on the journal’s instructions, the manuscript stage, and whether the editor has requested action.
At submission
Confirm that the system generated a receipt or manuscript ID. Check that the uploaded files open correctly, the author list is accurate, and the corresponding author can receive messages. If you use a cover letter, ensure it describes the manuscript accurately and follows the journal’s requirements; a journal cover letter guide can help you check the essentials.
During technical screening
Look for requests involving file formats, anonymization, references, ethics information, permissions, or missing declarations. Administrative corrections are usually easier to resolve when handled quickly. Do not upload a changed manuscript unless the system or editorial office instructs you to do so.
During editor assignment and reviewer selection
Record status changes, but avoid treating a long unchanged status as evidence of a problem. Reviewer availability, conflicts, subject expertise, editorial workload, and journal procedures can all affect the pace. If the journal publishes a stated process or expected timeframe, use that information as your main reference point.
After a decision
Save the complete decision letter and reviewer reports. For a revision, create a response document that lists each comment, explains the change, and identifies the relevant page, section, table, or line in the revised manuscript. For an acceptance, track production requests separately from the peer review record, including proof corrections and author forms.
How to interpret changes
A status change is useful only when considered with its context. “Under review” does not necessarily mean that every invited reviewer has agreed to review, and “required reviews complete” does not guarantee that a decision is imminent. Conversely, a status that has not changed may still represent active work inside the journal’s workflow.
Distinguish three kinds of change:
- Administrative change: The manuscript moves through file checks, metadata checks, or assignment steps. This usually requires attention only when the journal requests something.
- Editorial change: An editor evaluates fit, quality, originality, or reviewer advice. This stage can end in a decision without external peer review, depending on the journal’s process.
- Author-action change: The journal asks for a revision, clarification, form, or proof correction. This is the stage where your response deadline matters most.
If the system shows an unexpected withdrawal, duplicate submission, missing file, or author-list change, contact the editorial office promptly. Use the manuscript ID, state the specific issue, and ask one clear question. Avoid sending repeated messages through multiple addresses, and do not submit the same manuscript to another journal while the first submission remains active unless you have formally withdrawn it or received permission under the journal’s policy.
For context about the journal itself, you can separately check its indexing claims using this Scopus and Web of Science indexing guide. Indexing status does not determine where your manuscript is in the editorial workflow, so keep those two questions separate.
When to revisit
Revisit this workflow whenever your manuscript status changes, you receive a decision letter, a revision deadline approaches, or the journal contacts you about production. It is also worth reviewing your submission log before sending a follow-up message, transferring a manuscript to another journal, or updating co-authors.
For an active manuscript, use a recurring monthly or quarterly check to confirm that your contact details, ORCID connection, institutional affiliation, and saved correspondence remain accurate. Recheck the journal’s submission instructions before a revision or resubmission because file requirements, article categories, declarations, and platform steps can change.
When a review appears to be taking longer than the journal’s stated or customary process, follow this sequence:
- Check the journal website, submission system, and previous correspondence for an expected timeline or explanation.
- Confirm that no request is waiting in your email, spam folder, or author dashboard.
- Ask co-authors whether they received a message or system notification.
- Send one concise, courteous inquiry to the editorial office using the manuscript ID.
- Record the inquiry and allow reasonable time for a response before sending another message.
Keep this article as a process reference, but rely on the journal’s current author guidelines and direct correspondence for decisions about deadlines, withdrawal, resubmission, and publication forms. A clear log turns an opaque status page into a manageable workflow and helps you respond thoughtfully at each stage.
