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

Before the paper reaches an external referee, an ApJ Scientific Editor evaluates whether the astrophysics scope and scientific correctness warrant ApJ's editorial slots. About 15 to 25 percent of submissions are desk-rejected within 2 weeks. 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 Publications editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information, AASTeX template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation (where applicable), and data-availability statement. 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 relevant reporting standards are AAS data-policy guidance and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data principles for raw observations, simulations, and code.

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.

In parallel with the primary Scientific Editor's read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the AAS Publications editorial team where peer Scientific Editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at ApJ flagship or at sister AAS journals. This editorial office consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

ApJ Scientific Editors typically invite 1 referee under the single-blind, single-referee process, with referee recruitment typically taking 5 to 10 days. The recruitment window can take longer because referees with topic-matched astrophysics subspecialty expertise are scarce.

Once the referee agrees to review, the typical ApJ peer-review cycle lasts 4 to 10 weeks per referee. The single-referee model keeps timelines shorter than many comparable journals. Referees are asked to evaluate astrophysics scientific correctness, contribution, and reproducibility. Referee reports for ApJ tend to be focused; 1500 to 3000 word reports are typical.

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.

• Status changes to "Decision Pending": The single referee's report is in; expect a decision within 1 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 ApJ's 4 to 8 week first-decision distribution. 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. AAS supports manuscript-transfer with referee reports preserved.

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.

AAS asks referees at ApJ to evaluate four things specifically. 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 uses single-blind, single-referee review for most papers, 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 →

AAS Publications cascade offers from Scientific Editor. When the Scientific Editor concludes the work is sound but the standard ApJ track is not the best fit, transfer offers to ApJL (rapid Letters), ApJS (supplement series), AJ (observational), RNAAS (short notes), or PSJ (planetary science) are common. AAS Publications editors take these transfers seriously.

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 (60 to 70 percent acceptance rate reflecting astrophysics publishing culture, 4 to 8 week standard first decision, 3 to 6 week ApJL Letters first decision, 6 to 12 week standard peer review, single-blind single-referee model, EIC Ethan Vishniac structure with ApJL Scientific Editor), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with ApJ-targeted manuscripts.

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 typically draw from 1 astrophysics subspecialty expert under the single-blind, single-referee model. 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.