The Astrophysical Journal 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

The stages below are generic, not AAS portal status names. The AAS portal shows the current stage on the manuscript details page and publishes no typical durations, so the durations are Manusights planning estimates.

Before the paper reaches an external referee, an ApJ Scientific Editor evaluates whether the astrophysics scope and scientific correctness warrant ApJ's editorial slots. Decisions in under 2 weeks are usually editorial rejections for scope, completeness, or technical issues, while standard peer review takes 6 to 12 weeks.

A desk rejection most often means the editor concluded that the work would fit better at a sister AAS Publications journal (ApJL for shorter-format rapid Letters, ApJS for supplement series, AJ for astronomical observations, RNAAS for research notes, PSJ for planetary science) or that the astrophysics scientific-correctness bar is not met.

The AAS journals office processes the submission. The AAS pre-submission checklist lists what the files and form should contain: line numbers, an abstract shorter than 250 words, a current email address for every author, correctly formatted references, files at one directory level, and a cover letter if you opted in to dual anonymous review. ApJ does not typically require CONSORT (clinical trials), STROBE (observational studies), or PRISMA (systematic reviews) reporting checklists since astrophysics submissions rarely involve human-subjects research; the AAS Data Guide and software policy are the relevant data and code guidance.

The Scientific Editor reads the paper and evaluates astrophysics scientific correctness, contribution, and ApJ subspecialty routing. Decisions in under 2 weeks are usually editorial rejections for scope, completeness, or technical issues.

The AAS pre-submission checklist says the final journal destination is the Lead Editor's decision, so ambiguous-fit papers may be reconsidered for a sister AAS journal during this window. The AAS does not describe how long this takes.

ApJ articles are generally sent to one reviewer, although at the editor's discretion two or more may be used. As a Manusights planning estimate, referee recruitment takes 5 to 10 days, and longer because referees with topic-matched astrophysics subspecialty expertise are scarce.

Once the referee agrees to review, a peer-review cycle of 4 to 10 weeks is a reasonable planning estimate. Using one reviewer generally keeps timelines shorter than at journals that wait for several reports. Referees typically weigh scientific correctness, contribution, and reproducibility. Report lengths vary.

After the report returns, the Scientific Editor synthesizes it. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 3 to 6 months for successful papers, including revision rounds.

• Rejection within 1 to 14 days: Editorial rejection for scope, completeness, or technical issues.

• Still Under Review after 2 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Scientific Editor desk-screen.

• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Single-referee delay. A polite inquiry via the AAS Publications portal is appropriate.

• The stage changes to a decision stage: The referee's report is likely in; a decision often follows within about a week.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from ApJ authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 5 weeks at Under Review puts you in the normal middle of our 4 to 8 week first-decision planning range. The single-referee report may already be in editorial synthesis with the Scientific Editor preparing the recommendation.

Most referee-driven delays come from the single-referee model (when the one assigned referee is slow or asks for an extension) rather than slow reviews. If the portal still says Under Review at the 8-week mark, the most likely explanation is that the assigned referee asked for an extension and the Scientific Editor granted it. This is normal practice at ApJ.

At 5 to 8 weeks, a status inquiry usually helps only if a concrete record issue changed: a data-archive link broke, a related arXiv or journal paper appeared, an author-list correction is needed, or an observatory acknowledgment must be corrected. If none of those changed, wait until 10 weeks and then send one concise AAS Publications message with the manuscript ID, title, submission date, current status, and a request for confirmation that referee review is still active.

If your ApJ paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the referee and Scientific Editor cited:

The Astrophysical Journal Letters (ApJL) is the natural AAS Publications rapid-Letters cascade for time-sensitive results. The AAS pages we reviewed do not describe a transfer service, so plan on a new submission unless the editor offers a transfer.

The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (ApJS) is the AAS cascade for data-intensive supplement papers.

The Astronomical Journal (AJ) is the AAS cascade for observational astronomy.

Research Notes of the AAS (RNAAS) is the AAS short-note cascade.

The Planetary Science Journal (PSJ) is the AAS cascade for planetary science.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) is the external Royal Astronomical Society cascade. MNRAS uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact via Oxford Academic journal page publishing services.

Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A) is the external EDP Sciences cascade for European astronomy.

Physical Review D is the external APS cascade for field-theoretic astrophysics. PRD uses Authors submission portal; editorial contact prd@aps.org.

Referees at ApJ typically weigh four things. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

In our pre-submission work with ApJ-targeted manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent referee concerns and the most common reasons papers miss the editorial bar or fail the desk screen.

Scope or completeness gaps flagged at Scientific Editor desk screen. When the submission lacks completeness (missing figures, incomplete analyses, technical issues), Scientific Editor desk rejection within 2 weeks is common. The strongest manuscripts ensure completeness before submission.

Check whether your ApJ submission looks complete to a Scientific Editor →

Single-referee opinion mismatch surfaces as the dominant outcome driver. Because ApJ articles are generally sent to one reviewer, the referee's view of contribution clarity carries substantial weight. The strongest manuscripts anticipate the most common referee concerns explicitly in the introduction and discussion.

Check your contribution framing for a single-referee review →

Journal-route mismatch. When the Scientific Editor concludes the work is sound but the standard ApJ track is not the best fit, the paper may be redirected to ApJL (rapid Letters), ApJS (supplement series), AJ (observational), RNAAS (short notes), or PSJ (planetary science); the AAS pages say the final journal destination is the Lead Editor's decision.

Check if your manuscript fits ApJ, ApJL, ApJS, AJ, RNAAS, or PSJ →

We have reviewed 50+ manuscripts targeting The Astrophysical Journal, ApJL, ApJS, AJ, MNRAS, A&A, and Physical Review D. Full Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on your manuscript.

In our pre-submission review work across astrophysics and physics-adjacent targets, we see five recurring preventable risks before peer review: unclear contribution framing, missing data or code traceability, unregistered object naming, insufficient simulation-parameter detail, and a journal-route mismatch between ApJ, ApJL, ApJS, AJ, RNAAS, or PSJ. Source limitation: official guidance explains AAS manuscript preparation, data policy, ethics, charges, and submission mechanics, but it cannot diagnose whether your abstract, first figure, observation log, simulation appendix, and cover letter will satisfy the Scientific Editor and assigned referee.

This page was created from AAS Publications editorial documentation at iopscience.iop.org, IOP Publishing ApJ guidance (ApJ articles generally sent to one reviewer, dual anonymous review on request), community timing data, and Manusights pre-submission review experience with ApJ-targeted manuscripts. The review durations on this page are Manusights planning estimates.

For the AAS Publications astrophysics landscape beyond ApJ, see The Astrophysical Journal Letters (rapid Letters cascade), The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (data-intensive), The Astronomical Journal (observational astronomy), Research Notes of the AAS (short notes), The Planetary Science Journal (planetary science), and external astrophysics alternatives (MNRAS, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Physical Review D, Nature Astronomy).

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is standard astrophysics research (ApJ), rapid time-sensitive Letters (ApJL), data-intensive supplement (ApJS), observational astronomy (AJ), short notes (RNAAS), planetary science (PSJ), RAS astronomy (MNRAS), European astronomy (A&A), particle-cosmology (PRD), or top-tier Nature Portfolio (Nature Astronomy).

Referees at ApJ are generally one astrophysics subspecialty expert per paper. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any referee sees them, and preparing a response template that anticipates single-referee opinion accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the ApJ scientific-correctness-plus-contribution bar before submission, our Astrophysical Journal pre-submission diagnostic flags the completeness and contribution-clarity weaknesses most likely to surface in the single-referee report.