Journal Submission
Timeline Tracker
Know what to expect, when to follow up, and how to stop losing years to the waiting game.
Nobody tells you about the time cost. I once had a paper sit in a journal's backlog for two years between acceptance and publication. The paper was three years old by the time anyone could cite it. That's not unusual. It's just not talked about.
This tracker is for all the time that doesn't appear on your CV.
This guide includes four sections:
01 What the timeline actually looks like |
02 Red flags and green flags |
03 Your submission log |
04 Running multiple papers
What the Timeline Actually Looks Like
Realistic ranges for each stage of a typical submission cycle — from draft to publication.
| Stage | Typical Range | What's Happening |
|---|---|---|
| Submission to desk decision | 1 day – 6 weeks | Editor checks fit before sending to reviewers. Fast rejections here are normal — not a judgment on quality. |
| Peer reviewer assignment | 2 days – 4 weeks | Editor identifies and invites reviewers. Delays here usually mean reviewers are declining; editor is searching. |
| Active review period | 4 – 16 weeks | Reviewers are reading and writing feedback. Some journals publish average review times — check before submitting. |
| Editorial decision after reviews | 1 – 4 weeks | Editor reads reviews, weighs recommendations, and drafts decision letter. Delays often signal a contested decision. |
| Revision window | 4 – 12 weeks | You respond to reviewer comments and resubmit. Many journals will grant extensions — ask before the deadline. |
| Final decision after revision | 4 – 8 weeks | May go back to original reviewers or be handled by editor alone. A second round of minor revisions is common. |
| Acceptance to online publication | 2 weeks – 18 months | Production queue, typesetting, proofing. Open access journals tend to move faster. High-impact journals often don't. |
Where to find a journal's published timeline
- Check the journal's Author Guidelines or About page — many publish average review times.
- Search the journal on Scimago or Web of Science for editorial metrics.
- Look at recently published papers: submission and acceptance dates are often printed on the article.
- Ask colleagues who have published there — published timelines are averages; real experience varies.
Total time from first submission to publication: anywhere from 6 months to 3+ years. Plan accordingly — which means planning for multiple papers, not one.
Red Flags and Green Flags by Stage
Not every delay is a problem. But some are. Here's how to tell the difference.
When and how to follow up — sample email template
Wait until you are past the expected window for that stage. One polite follow-up is appropriate. If there is no response after two weeks, a second follow-up is reasonable. After that, you have grounds to consider withdrawing.
I am writing to inquire about the status of my manuscript, "[Paper title]" (Ref. No. [manuscript number]), submitted on [submission date].
[Choose one based on stage:]
I understand that peer review takes time and appreciate the effort involved. As it has now been [X weeks/months] since submission, I would be grateful for a brief update on the timeline, if that is possible.
Thank you for your time and for considering my work. I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
[Your name]
[Institution, Department]
[Contact email]
My Submission Log
Track up to 5 active submissions. Update each entry as decisions arrive.
Fill in each row as you submit. Return to update dates and outcomes at each stage. The "Notes" column is for reviewer comments, gut reactions, and anything you want to remember before the next submission.
Running Multiple Papers Simultaneously
Why single-paper sequential submission is a career risk — and what to do instead.
The single-paper trap
If you are writing one paper at a time, submitting it, and then waiting for an outcome before starting the next one, you are handing your publication timeline entirely to journal processing queues — which are largely outside your control. A paper in review for 6 months, rejected, resubmitted, and rejected again can easily consume 18 months. If you have nothing else in the pipeline, that is 18 months with nothing moving toward publication. The research did not stop. The career clock did not stop.
A simple pipeline model: always have three papers in motion
One paper you are actively writing, revising, or preparing for submission.
- Focus here when you have writing energy
- Move it toward submission on a concrete date
- Don't wait for other papers to resolve first
One paper sitting with a journal — out of your hands, in their queue.
- Track it in your submission log
- Follow up when past expected windows
- Do not wait for this to resolve to start the next
One paper with reviewer feedback in hand, being actively revised.
- Prioritize this — it is closest to acceptance
- Do not let revisions sit past 4 weeks
- A revised paper is almost always accepted
How to use waiting time productively
A paper under review is not "done." It is waiting. Waiting is writing time for the next paper.
While paper is in review
- Start drafting the next paper from existing data
- Write or revise a literature review for a parallel project
- Identify 3–5 target journals for your in-draft paper
- Do a conference abstract from the submitted work
While awaiting a decision after revision
- Begin the next submission's cover letter and journal selection
- Review 2–3 papers in your field for currency
- Update your CV entry from "under review" to reflect status
- Rest. Revision is exhausting. The decision will come.
A note on burnout
Running a three-paper pipeline is not a call to produce indefinitely without rest. It is a structural argument against putting all your publication energy into a single outcome you cannot control. Pacing matters. What you are building is not speed — it is resilience against the unpredictability of the system.
