American Journal of Human Genetics ‘Under Review’: What the Status Means

The following plan is for the author, not a claim that AJHG completes a named editorial stage on a given day.

Day 0: preserve the submission record

Save the submitted PDF, source files, tables, figures, supplementary data, code links, cover letter, author approvals, and confirmation message. Record the manuscript ID and corresponding author. A clean record is essential if AJHG asks for a correction or a concise point-by-point answer.

Day 1: make the human-genetics claim auditable

Map each abstract claim to the result, figure, table, methods description, cohort definition, data source, and limitation that support it. For a human-genetics paper, that frequently means being able to point to phenotype definition, sample selection, ancestry handling, variant evidence, replication design, and analysis code rather than merely saying that the analysis was rigorous.

Days 1 to 7: check reporting and availability in parallel

In parallel with the journal workflow, verify repositories, accessions, source data, code, consent language, ethics approvals, author contributions, funding, and competing interests. Use the primary reporting framework that fits the design, such as STROBE for observational research, CONSORT for trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, or ARRIVE for animal research. This is a readiness audit, not a request to replace a manuscript without AJHG asking.

Days 1 to 7: draft response evidence, not a speculative rebuttal

At the same time, create a short evidence file: the central claim, its strongest figure, the method or statistical analysis supporting it, the key limitation, the data or code location, and any sensitivity or replication result. These are concurrent author tasks that help if AJHG requests information, if reviewers identify a genuine gap, or if a formal decision changes the next action.

AJHG is the American Society of Human Genetics' flagship journal and its public process starts with an in-depth editorial evaluation before qualifying manuscripts are sent to reviewers. A handling editor must assess fit across human genetics and genomics, while reviewers test the evidence supporting the paper's claims. That is why an author should not reduce “Under Review” to a verdict thermometer. The published process tells you that both editorial evaluation and external assessment matter; it does not disclose who is handling a particular manuscript, what a reviewer has said, or whether a decision has been drafted.

The useful preparation work is therefore specific. Make the abstract's human-genetics contribution traceable to the figures and results. Make methods, sample definition, controls, statistical analysis, data, and code easy to locate. If the paper includes clinical or participant data, make consent, approvals, and access constraints clear. Those actions improve the response record without pretending to know what AJHG is deciding.

"My paper has been Under Review for 4 weeks. Is that bad?"

No conclusion follows from the clock alone. AJHG's 4-week figure is a published effort to reach decisions from submission, not a promise that every paper will receive the same result at the same moment. A paper may be in editorial assessment, reviewer recruitment, active review, or decision handling, and the public label does not distinguish those possibilities. Check whether AJHG has actually asked for something. If not, keep the evidence record ready and avoid inventing a reviewer narrative.

Follow up for a concrete manuscript need, not because a status field must contain a hidden explanation. AJHG lists author information, and the manuscript portal is AJHG Editorial Manager. The AJHG editorial office can be reached at ajhg@cell.com.

A concise inquiry is appropriate when there is a verified ethics, authorship, data-access, permissions, or file problem; a formal request is unclear; or the journal's published decision aim has been materially exceeded and you need to know whether action is required from the authors. Include the manuscript ID, last documented event, the factual issue, and the one clarification needed. Do not ask the office to forecast a decision.

This decision artifact does not predict acceptance. It tells authors which action is supported by the evidence they actually have.

AJHG states that a revision is generally allowed 4 weeks and only one revised version is considered. That makes a complete evidence inventory more valuable than a collection of vague possible fixes. If a decision requests clarification, the response should show exactly where the revised abstract, results, figure, methods, table, supplementary material, data, or code addresses it. If a requested analysis cannot be done, explain the limitation honestly and show what evidence is available instead.

This is not a reason to anticipate every possible review. It is a reason to know the current manuscript well enough to respond precisely when the actual request arrives.

Read the decision letter first. A scope issue, an evidence issue, a reporting gap, and a request to consider transfer are different decisions.

• Scope or audience issue: Re-evaluate the human-genetics or genomics owner before changing wording alone.
• Evidence or statistical issue: Repair the claim-to-evidence chain, including cohort, controls, analysis, replication, figures, data, or code as relevant.
• Reporting or integrity issue: Correct the underlying disclosure, consent, repository, source-file, or methodology record before a new submission.
• Transfer option: AJHG notes that papers not accepted may be offered transfer to HGG Advances, but the destination's current scope and requirements still need an independent check.

For a new AJHG submission rather than a status question, use the AJHG submission guide. For a source-linked review of the human-genetics evidence chain, use an AJHG readiness review.