The Astrophysical Journal 'Under Review': What Each Status Means
If your Astrophysical Journal submission shows Under Review, here is what each status means and when to follow up.
What to do next
Already submitted to Astrophysical Journal? Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next step.
The useful next step is understanding what the status usually means at Astrophysical Journal, how long the wait normally runs, and when a follow-up is actually reasonable.
Astrophysical Journal review timeline: what the data shows
Time to first decision is the most actionable number. What happens after varies by manuscript and reviewer availability.
What shapes the timeline
- Desk decisions are fast. Scope problems surface within days.
- Reviewer availability is the main variable after triage. Specialized topics take longer to assign.
- Revision rounds reset the clock. Major revision typically adds 6-12 weeks per round.
What to do while waiting
- Track status in the submission portal — status changes signal active review.
- Wait at least the journal's stated median before sending a status inquiry.
- Prepare revision materials in parallel if you expect a revise-and-resubmit decision.
_Last reviewed: 2026-05-16._
Quick answer: The Astrophysical Journal (ApJ) has a 2024 JCR impact factor of 5.4, accepts about 70 percent of submissions with revisions, and reports a median first-decision time of approximately 60 days. If still Under Review past 2 weeks, you have likely cleared the initial editorial screen.
Submission portal and editorial contact: The Astrophysical Journal uses AAS/IOP ScholarOne at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/apj-journals. Editorial questions go through the AAS editorial office; the IOP portal supports queries via the IOP Publishing author services.
ApJ desk-rejects roughly 25 to 35 percent in 5 to 10 days. If past that window, peer review is active.
While you wait
A ApJ submission readiness check flags uncertainty-treatment gaps, reproducibility issues, and missing software citations that drive most desk rejections.
ApJ's review pipeline
Status | What is happening | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
Submitted | Administrative processing | Day 0 to 2 |
With Editor | Editor evaluating desk-screen fit | Days 2 to 10 |
Under Review | Reviewers invited or actively reviewing | Days 10 to 60 |
Required Reviews Complete | Editor synthesizing reports | 5 to 10 days |
Decision in Process | Editor finalizing decision letter | 3 to 7 days |
Decision Made | Reject, R&R, or accept | Check email |
The editorial desk screen (about 25 to 35 percent rejected)
ApJ editors evaluate astrophysical-contribution completeness, uncertainty treatment, and reproducibility. ApJ filters for completeness rather than prestige; desk rejections usually mean incomplete uncertainty analysis or missing data-availability statements.
Day 0: ScholarOne upload
The mc.manuscriptcentral.com/apj-journals portal accepts the package and routes to an editor matching the astrophysics subfield.
Days 1 to 10: Editor desk-screen
The handling editor reads the paper, evaluates uncertainty treatment and completeness, and decides whether to invite reviewers.
Days 10 to 28: Reviewer invitations
ApJ typically invites two to three reviewers with astrophysics-subfield expertise.
Days 28 to 60: Peer review
Reviewer reports return on a 4 to 12 week cadence; the 60-day median first-decision time reflects this.
Days 60 to 90: First editorial decision
Minor revision or major revision are the most common outcomes; outright rejection is less common than at flagship astronomy venues.
Days 90 to 240: Revision rounds and acceptance
Single-revision acceptances run roughly 4 to 6 months total.
When to worry
- Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.
- Rejection within 7 to 14 days: Desk rejection. Usually completeness or scope.
- Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Good sign.
- Still Under Review after 12 weeks: Reviewer delay (common during conference season).
- Status changes to "Decision in Process": Decision within days.
Readiness check
While you wait on Astrophysical Journal, scan your next manuscript.
The scan takes about 1-2 minutes. Use the result to decide whether to revise before the decision comes back.
What to do while waiting
- Do not contact during the first 10 weeks unless urgent.
- Prepare a point-by-point response template focused on uncertainty propagation, reproducibility, and software citations.
How ApJ compares to nearby alternatives
Feature | ApJ | MNRAS | Astronomy & Astrophysics | Nature Astronomy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Desk rejection rate | 25 to 35 percent | 20 to 30 percent | 25 to 35 percent | 80 to 85 percent |
Desk decision speed | 5 to 10 days | 7 to 14 days | 7 to 14 days | 7 to 14 days |
Total review time | 60 days median | 1 to 2 months first decision | 1 to 2 months first decision | 8 to 14 weeks |
Editorial bar | Completeness and reproducibility | Theoretical/computational astrophysics | European astronomy, ESA/ESO data | Highest-impact astrophysics |
Submit if your paper passed the desk
If your ApJ paper is Under Review past 2 weeks, you have likely cleared the desk screen.
Think twice before assuming "Under Review" means safe
Editors retain discretion to reject after partial review if reviewer reports identify uncertainty or reproducibility gaps. Our ApJ manuscript fit check flags uncertainty-treatment and reproducibility gaps before reviewers do.
For a free pre-upload diagnostic, use the ApJ manuscript fit check.
Last verified: ApJ author guidance, AAS/IOP ScholarOne portal at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/apj-journals, and AAS editorial office.
The ApJ reviewer experience
Reviewer focus area | What ApJ asks reviewers to evaluate | How to prepare |
|---|---|---|
Uncertainty treatment | Are systematic and statistical uncertainties propagated correctly? | Document each uncertainty source explicitly |
Reproducibility | Could another team reproduce these analyses from methods and data? | Deposit data; cite software with versions |
Astrophysical context | Does the work connect to current astrophysical questions? | Anchor introduction to an active research question |
Methods clarity | Are observational/computational methods well-described? | Include enough detail for reproduction without author contact |
Software citation | Are analysis tools cited with versions per AAS policy? | Cite each tool (Python, NumPy, etc.) with version |
In our pre-submission review work with ApJ manuscripts
Three failure patterns generate the most consistent rejections.
Uncertainty treatment incomplete. ApJ editors flag papers with weak systematic-uncertainty analysis.
Missing software citations. AAS policy requires versioned citations for analysis tools.
Reproducibility unclear. Data-availability and code-availability statements are required.
Methodology note
This page was created from ApJ's public author guidance, AAS/IOP ScholarOne documentation, and Manusights review work.
Frequently asked questions
Your manuscript has cleared AAS/IOP ScholarOne admin checks and is being evaluated, either by the handling editor or by external peer reviewers.
The Astrophysical Journal reports a median first-decision time of approximately 60 days. Desk decisions usually arrive within 1 to 2 weeks; full peer-review decisions land 6 to 12 weeks after submission.
Wait at least 12 weeks before inquiring. Contact the AAS editorial office, referencing the manuscript ID.
Reviewers are evaluating the paper. ApJ typically invites two to three reviewers with astrophysics-subfield expertise.
Yes. The 60-day median means roughly half of papers take longer. Conference-season delays are common.
Past 12 weeks is the right moment for a polite, factual inquiry. Silence in the first 6 weeks is normal.
Sources
Best next step
Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next sensible move.
For Astrophysical Journal, the better next step is guidance on timing, follow-up, and what to do while the manuscript is still in the system. Save the Free Readiness Scan for the next paper you have not submitted yet.
Guidance first. Use the scan for the next manuscript.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Astrophysical Journal Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect
- Astrophysical Journal Submission Process: What Happens From Upload to First Decision
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Astrophysical Journal
- Is The Astrophysical Journal a Good Journal? Impact, Scope, and Fit
- The Astrophysical Journal Letters Submission Guide
- Astrophysical Journal Cover Letter: What Editors Actually Need to See
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next sensible move.
Guidance first. Use the scan for the next manuscript.