Astrophysical Journal Review Time: Time to First Decision and Publication

The Astrophysical Journal (ApJ) is the flagship journal of the American Astronomical Society, publishing observational, theoretical, and computational research across astrophysics. It has been in continuous publication since 1895 and remains one of the most widely cited journals in astronomy.

With a 2024 JIF of 5.4 (JCR 2024), ApJ sits at rank 17 out of 84 journals in Astronomy & Astrophysics. The journal publishes a very high volume of papers, uses a single-referee system for most submissions, and benefits from a professional editorial staff through IOP Publishing.

Timeline at a glance

ApJ uses continuous publication, so accepted papers appear online without waiting for a specific issue date. That makes the post-acceptance window very short compared to print-schedule journals.

How ApJ handles submissions

ApJ uses IOP's submission system and a traditional editorial structure: papers are assigned to a scientific editor (an active researcher in the relevant subfield) who makes the desk decision and referee selection. The journal has a reputation for responsive editorial handling.

The single-referee model is unusual among major journals. Most high-impact journals use two or three reviewers. ApJ's approach keeps the process faster but also means the entire review outcome rests on one expert. A referee who is methodically thorough, or who has a different perspective on your approach, can extend the timeline compared to a majority-rules multi-referee process.

ApJ has moved toward optional double-blind review in recent years, following similar moves at journals like Nature and several MNRAS initiatives. Authors who want to reduce identity effects during review can request this at submission.

What slows review at ApJ

Referee availability. ApJ publishes broadly across observational, theoretical, and computational astrophysics. Finding a qualified referee for highly specialized work (e.g., polarimetric analysis of a specific class of X-ray binaries) can require outreach to multiple candidates. One no-response or declined referee can add 2-3 weeks to the timeline.

Large paper packages. Papers with extensive supplementary material, large datasets, or complex multi-panel figures take longer for referees to evaluate. A paper with 20 figures and a 40-page appendix will get a slower review than a focused 8-page paper with 8 figures, even with the same underlying science.

Major result scrutiny. Papers claiming significant discoveries (a new class of object, a tension with the standard model, a multi-messenger event) often receive a more rigorous initial and post-revision review. That scrutiny takes time and is appropriate.

Revision complexity. ApJ referees are sometimes thorough. A referee report with 15 specific questions requires careful response. Authors who rush the revision often receive a second referee report, adding 4-6 more weeks.

What authors can control

Front-load your key result. ApJ's scientific editors read a lot of papers. If your abstract and introduction don't clearly state what you found and why it matters to the field, the editor may send the paper to a less specialized referee or have a harder time identifying the right one.

Offer to suggest referees. ApJ allows suggested reviewers. Providing 3-5 names with relevant expertise and confirmed availability (if you know them) often leads to faster assignment. Exclude obvious conflicts of interest.

Respond to the referee, not the science. Revision letters should address each referee comment specifically. Don't rewrite the paper to show off additional work; fix what the referee raised and show clearly in the response where each change appears in the manuscript.

Use ApJL for short, urgent findings. If your result is concise, high-impact, and time-sensitive, the Astrophysical Journal Letters is better suited. ApJL (JIF 11.7) publishes communications under 7 pages (roughly) with a faster typical timeline of 3-6 weeks to first decision.

When to worry

Standard wait times for ApJ are 4-8 weeks. If you're past 10 weeks:

• Check your submission system status. "In referee review" or "In review" means a referee is active; wait to 12 weeks before inquiring.
• "Editor assigned" status that hasn't changed after 6 weeks suggests referee recruitment issues. An inquiry is appropriate.
• After submitting a revision, wait 6 weeks before following up.

Contact the editorial office via AAS's online system with your manuscript number and a brief, professional status request.

Faster alternatives if speed matters

• Astrophysical Journal Letters (ApJL) (JIF 11.7): Faster for concise, high-impact results. First decision often 3-6 weeks.
• Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) (JIF 4.7): Strong UK/European journal. Two-referee process but often comparable speed.
• Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A) (JIF 5.5): Continental Europe's flagship. Similar timeline, strong in observational and theoretical work.
• Astronomical Journal (AJ) (JIF 4.8): AAS sibling journal, traditionally more observational, similar timeline.

For the full journal overview, see the Astrophysical Journal journal page. Our pre-submission review service helps you assess scope fit and manuscript readiness before submission.

Impact factor source: Clarivate Journal Citation Reports, JCR 2024.