Average Review Times Across 100 Journals in 2026: What the Tracked Data Shows
Review speed is one of the most misread journal signals. Fast decisions can mean efficient editorial systems, harsh desk triage, or both.
While you wait
Waiting on a decision? Get your next move ready.
The wait is out of your hands; the next move isn't. Scan your next manuscript free, or run this paper through the scan to see what reviewers typically push back on, so the revision response is ready when the decision lands.
Quick answer: Publishers' own figures put most first decisions within days, not months. Across the 152 Elsevier journals whose Journal Finder card shows a figure, the median is 5 days to first decision, because that clock counts desk rejections. Cell Press reports 3 to 19 days to a first editorial decision, and Nature Portfolio 4 to 10 days to its send-to-review screen. Clocks that start after peer review run longer: 28.6 days at ACS Catalysis, 58 days at Chemical Reviews, 15 to 22 days at MDPI journals.
A fast journal can be fast because editors screen aggressively. A slow journal can be slow because reviewers are scarce, the field expects long reports, or the queue is simply heavy. The useful number is not the headline average. It is the editorial model hiding underneath it.
What this benchmark actually covers
In October 2026 we read each publisher's own reported time to first decision for 170 journals:
- Elsevier Journal Finder cards for 152 journals (submission to first decision; desk rejections included)
- Cell Press journal metrics for 8 journals (median time to first editorial decision)
- MDPI journal pages for 4 journals (median time to first decision after peer review, first half of 2026)
- Nature Portfolio, Science family, ACS and PLOS metrics pages for the journals named below
Publishers do not measure the same event. A "first decision" at Elsevier includes immediate rejections, Cell Press and Nature Portfolio time the editor's send-or-reject call, and MDPI and ACS (with peer review) time the decision after reviewers report. Compare journals within the same clock.
Headline benchmark numbers
Metric (Elsevier Journal Finder, 152 journals) | Value |
|---|---|
Median time to first decision | 5 days |
Mean time to first decision | 7.3 days |
Journals under 7 days | 93 |
Journals from 7 to 13 days | 42 |
Journals from 14 to 29 days | 13 |
Journals from 30 to 59 days | 3 |
Journals at 60 days or longer | 1 |
Other publishers' clocks | Reported figure |
|---|---|
Cell Press, first editorial decision (median) | 3 to 19 days across 8 journals |
Nature Portfolio, decision whether to send for review (2025) | 4 to 10 days across 5 journals |
Science and Science Advances, first decision (2025 median) | 8 days each |
ACS, first decision with peer review (2025 median) | 28.6 days (ACS Catalysis), 29.1 days (JACS), 58 days (Chemical Reviews) |
MDPI, first decision after peer review (median, first half of 2026) | 15 to 22 days across 4 journals |
The headline reading: a fast first decision is mostly an editorial screen. The clocks that include external review sit at two to eight weeks.
Fast, middle, and slow bands
Speed band | What the data usually means | What authors should infer |
|---|---|---|
Under 14 days | Professional editors, heavy desk triage, or both | Good for fast answers, not always good for peer review odds |
14 to 59 days | Mixed editorial handling plus real reviewer recruitment | Often the most normal operating range |
60 days or longer | Reviewer scarcity, academic-editor drag, or deep queueing | High opportunity cost if your timeline is tight |
That is the central reading mistake authors make: they treat all first-decision clocks as if they describe the same process.
For the other end of the process, our peer review timelines by journal table gives the median time from submission to acceptance for research articles, measured from PubMed records, and that interval includes the authors' revision time.
The fastest journals in the tracked set
Journal | Publisher-reported figure |
|---|---|
Ceramics International | 1 day to first decision (Elsevier Journal Finder) |
Construction and Building Materials | 3 days to first decision (Elsevier Journal Finder) |
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science | 3 days to first decision (Elsevier Journal Finder) |
Nature Biotechnology | 4 days to the decision whether to send for review (2025) |
Neuron | 4 days median to first editorial decision (Cell Press) |
Nature Immunology | 5 days to the decision whether to send for review (2025) |
Cell Reports | 5 days median to first editorial decision (Cell Press) |
Nature | 8 days to the decision whether to send for review (2025) |
Science Advances | 8 days median to first decision (2025) |
Nature Communications | 9 days to the decision whether to send for review (2025) |
These are not just "efficient journals." They are mostly journals with strong in-house editorial systems and high willingness to decline quickly.
The slowest journals in the tracked set
Journal | Publisher-reported figure |
|---|---|
Ecological Complexity | 64 days to first decision (Elsevier Journal Finder) |
Chemical Reviews | 58 days median to first decision with peer review (ACS, 2025) |
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine | 40 days to first decision (Elsevier Journal Finder) |
Pattern Recognition | 37 days to first decision (Elsevier Journal Finder) |
Food Chemistry | 31 days to first decision (Elsevier Journal Finder) |
Energy Policy | 30 days to first decision (Elsevier Journal Finder) |
ACS Catalysis | 28.6 days median to first decision with peer review (ACS, 2025) |
Remote Sensing | 22 days median to first decision after peer review (MDPI, first half of 2026) |
At the slow end, weeks matter. If you are applying for a job, closing a thesis chapter, or working against a grant deadline, that delay can be more important than the small prestige difference between two otherwise reasonable targets.
What we see when authors misuse review-time data
In our analysis of journal-timing pages and related submission strategy work, review-time data is most often misused in three ways.
Authors confuse fast triage with fast peer review. Editors actually screen very quickly at many prestige journals. A 4-day or 7-day first decision often says more about triage than about reviewer turnaround.
Authors compare one fast journal against one slow journal without comparing fit. We see this constantly. A faster first decision is not useful if the faster journal is simply a worse home for the manuscript.
Authors optimize for speed in isolation. We use this benchmark most effectively when it is paired with fit, desk rejection behavior, and the likely revision burden.
That is why this page should be read together with journal-specific guidance, not as a one-number ranking.
What to pair with review-time data
Metric to pair with review time | Why it matters |
|---|---|
Acceptance rate | Separates fast answers from realistic publication odds |
Desk rejection behavior | Explains whether the fast clock is mostly editor triage |
CiteScore | Helps place the journal's broader citation reach |
SJR | Adds a prestige-weighted citation signal |
H-index | Shows whether the journal has long-run field footprint |
This is the easiest way to avoid overreading speed. A journal with a fast first decision and a harsh editorial filter behaves very differently from a journal with a similar clock and a more review-heavy workflow.
Why the mean is slower than the median
Across the 152 Elsevier journals the mean (7.3 days) sits above the median (5 days) because a handful of titles report 30 to 64 days. In plain terms, a few slow clocks pull the average up.
A good way to read that:
- most Elsevier journals answer within a week, because the figure includes desk rejections
- 17 of the 152 report two weeks or longer
That is why authors should not plan from the mean alone.
Readiness check
While you wait, scan your next manuscript.
The scan takes about 2 to 3 minutes. Use the result to decide whether to revise before the decision comes back.
Why year-specific context still matters
One reason authors overread a single review-time number is that they forget journals change from year to year as submission volume, reviewer supply, and editorial staffing shift.
Public annual-report data from one journal does not replace a 100-journal benchmark, but it does show how unstable a single title's clock can be over time.
Year | Social Problems first-decision report | What it illustrates |
|---|---|---|
2015 | 29 days | a sub-month baseline is possible in one editorial setup |
2016 | 43 days | the clock can move materially in one year |
2017 | 51 days | a journal can rise from the prior year without changing identity |
2018 | 36 days | editorial systems can recover quickly |
2019 | 28 days | the same journal can fall back under one month |
2020 | 20 days | heavy operational shifts can compress first decisions |
2021 | 22 days | faster handling can persist for more than one cycle |
2022 | 19 days | one title can end up far below its own slower years |
That single-journal example is not meant to define the whole market. It is here to make one planning point clear: a journal's timing in one year should never be treated as a permanent property. In that annual-report series, the first-decision clock fell from 51 days in 2017 to 19 days in 2022. That is a larger swing than the gap between many journals authors treat as decisively different.
What fast review times do and do not tell you
Fast first decisions often tell you:
- the editorial office is organized
- the journal is comfortable making early no decisions
- the scope filter is tight
Fast first decisions do not automatically tell you:
- that external reviewers were quick
- that the journal is easy to publish in
- that the full path to publication will be short
Nature and Cell family journals are the clearest example. Their clocks are fast because editorial screening is fast.
Submit if / Think twice if
Use review-time data heavily if:
- you have a real deadline
- you are choosing between two journals with similar readership fit
- you need quick feedback more than maximum prestige
Think twice if:
- the faster journal is only faster because it desk rejects aggressively
- the slower journal is meaningfully better aligned with the manuscript
- you are using speed as a substitute for honest fit assessment
- the paper still needs structural work that will hurt it anywhere
What this page does not claim
This benchmark is useful, but it is still a simplification.
It does not claim that:
- every journal reports first decision in the same way
- every 7-day first decision means the same editorial event
- every 120-day first decision means deeper or better review
It does claim that the tracked distribution is wide enough that review time should be part of submission strategy rather than an afterthought.
The practical lesson
The number you should care about is not just "how long until I hear back?"
The better question is:
What kind of decision is this journal usually fast at?
If the answer is "fast at screening out weak or misfit submissions," that can still be useful. It is just a different kind of usefulness than fast external review.
If you need the broad benchmark, this page gives it. If you need the manuscript-level decision, the smarter move is to pair it with desk-rejection risk, fit, and the likely reviewer burden before submitting.
Before you enter a long queue, a manuscript readiness check can catch fit and framing problems that no fast journal will rescue.
Frequently asked questions
It compiles publisher-reported times to first decision for 170 journals, read in October 2026: Elsevier Journal Finder for 152 journals, Cell Press metrics for 8, MDPI journal pages for 4, plus the Nature Portfolio, Science, ACS and PLOS metrics pages. Each publisher measures a different event, so the figures are grouped by clock.
Across the 152 Elsevier journals that show a figure, the median is 5 days to first decision and the mean 7.3 days. That clock includes desk rejections. Clocks that include peer review run two to eight weeks.
Ceramics International reports 1 day, and Construction and Building Materials and Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 3 days (Elsevier, desk rejections included). Among editorial-decision clocks, Nature Biotechnology and Neuron report 4 days.
Ecological Complexity reports 64 days to first decision on Elsevier's Journal Finder, and Chemical Reviews a 58-day median to first decision with peer review (ACS, 2025). Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine (40 days) and Pattern Recognition (37 days) follow.
Not necessarily. Fast timelines often reflect strong editorial triage rather than unusually fast external peer review. Speed becomes useful only when read together with desk rejection behavior, fit, and the likely review depth.
Sources
Final step
Done interpreting the status? Put the wait to work.
The decision will arrive on the journal's clock. What you control is what's next: scan your next manuscript free, or run this paper through the scan so the likely reviewer pushback is mapped before the revision request lands.
Free scan, no card needed.
Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.
Re-read the status guidePut the guidance to work
Turn a decision into a clear next step.
Use the practical response workflow when a manuscript needs revision, or the process guide when you need to understand what the editorial status means.