We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

Navigating peer review: Sitting and waiting – What can you do? What should you do?

Navigating peer review: Sitting and waiting – What can you do? What should you do?

Congratulations! You’ve submitted your article to a leading international journal (hopefully with a high impact factor) and have checked your author area within their online submission system to see that you’re now ‘awaiting reviewer scores’. Most online systems give authors the opportunity to check on the status of submissions: it’s a good idea to login regularly to make sure that your article is moving through the peer review process. You will see little messages like ‘awaiting editorial approval’, ‘awaiting reviewer scores’, ‘awaiting editorial board comments’, and ‘decision pending’ as your article wends it’s way through this process. Eventually, an editor will make a decision and you will get your paper back with comments from peer reviewers.


Should you just sit, wait, and do nothing as an author as this process runs its course? No. One of the most common kinds of questions that we are asked during our paper writing and publishing workshops is along the lines of ‘I submitted a paper to a journal three months ago and I’ve heard nothing. The system still says ‘awaiting reviewer scores’. What should I do?’. Publication speed is very important to you as an author for obvious reasons: you must write to the editor if you have no news back about peer review and a reasonable amount of time has passed. What constitutes a ‘reasonable amount of time’? Well, the average length of time across the publishing industry from submission to online publication is three months. 90 days. We recommend writing to your journal editor if one month has passed and your paper appears ‘stuck’ in the submission system. Publishers are also interested in speed of publication, and many will use analytics to track this by journal and sometimes even by editor – so you are not the only one in this process with a vested interest!


Authors, especially young researchers, are often nervous about writing directly to journal editors. Don’t be: this is your paper, your research, your career, and your future. Get in touch with our team at Charlesworth and we can provide you with short templates for writing these kinds of emails. Some quick tips:


- Be polite but direct when writing to a journal editor. What’s the issue that needs to be addressed?


- Make sure your email is positive: what solution are you proposing to the issue?


For example, let’s imagine that your research paper is stuck ‘awaiting reviewer comments’ and two months have passed with no news from the journal.


‘Dear Editor: I am writing on behalf of my co-authors to enquire about the status of our paper submitted on x date, entitled y’. We see that this article is ‘awaiting reviewer comments’ and more than two months have passed: we have therefore taken the opportunity to suggest the names of some additional colleagues who would be suitable peer-reviewers’. Don’t forget to include two or three additional names and email addresses at the bottom of your short message.


It’s always a good idea to write and interact directly with journal editors. As we’ve discussed before, these colleagues are very often also busy academic researchers, running their groups, supervising students, teaching, and, also, managing journals. Papers get forgotten about, reviewers are not chased. You must take the initiative as an author: editors will appreciate and understand this! Don’t be pushy. Don’t be aggressive. Always be polite, constructive, and offer solutions to save the editor time.


Once, in one of our author workshops, we were asked: ‘my paper has been in review with a journal for more than a year and I’ve heard nothing. What should I do?’. It’s your career. Please don’t let this happen to you!


Click here to listen to one of our webinars about peer review.


Share with your colleagues

Related articles

Open Peer Review: What is it and what are the benefits?

What Is Peer Review?

When peer review goes wrong: How to communicate with your target journal

Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review

The thorny issue of peer review: Should I remain anonymous?

Recommended webinars

Bitesize Webinar: Peer Review: Module 1: Introducing Peer Review

Bitesize Webinar: Peer Review: Module 2: Types of Peer Review

Bitesize Webinar: Peer Review: Module 3: Reviewing Peer Reviewers

Bitesize Webinar: Peer Review: Module 4: Dealing with revise and resubmit

Bitesize Webinar: Peer Review: Module 5: Dealing with rejection

Learn more

What are the Differences between Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review?

Positive peer review: Some tips and tricks

Rejection at the pre-peer review stage

Received a rejection letter? Don’t take it to heart as this is not always what it seems

Understanding the ‘Five Stages of Peer Review’