Diabetes (ADA) 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision

Before the paper reaches Associate Editor assignment, the Diabetes Editor-in-Chief assesses each submission to determine the priority score. About 50 percent of manuscripts (those below the 50th percentile priority score) are returned without further review. A return at this stage most often means the EIC concluded that the work would fit better at a sister ADA journal (Diabetes Care for clinical diabetes research, Clinical Diabetes for primary-care diabetes, Diabetes Spectrum for diabetes education) or that the basic-translational diabetes priority bar is not met.

The Diabetes editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, supplementary information separate, reporting checklists where applicable (ARRIVE for animal work, MIQE for quantitative PCR), cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, IRB approvals, and data-availability statement.

The EIC assesses each submission to determine whether the content and subject of the manuscript is appropriate for the journal, applying the priority-score gate. Due to an increasing number of submissions and limited editorial space, only those manuscripts that meet a priority score above the 50th percentile will be reviewed.

In parallel with the EIC's priority-score assessment, borderline-score papers are discussed across the ADA editorial team where peer Associate Editors and the EIC consult on whether the paper meets the priority threshold or would fit better at a sister ADA journal. This editorial-team discussion runs alongside the assessment and adds 3 to 7 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Papers that meet the priority score above the 50th percentile are assigned to an Associate Editor who is versed in the subject area of the manuscript. The Associate Editor invites 3 expert peer reviewers.

Diabetes Associate Editors typically invite 3 expert peer reviewers, with reviewer recruitment typically taking 7 to 14 days. The recruitment window can take longer because reviewers with topic-matched basic-translational diabetes subspecialty expertise are scarce.

Once reviewers agree to review, the typical Diabetes peer-review cycle lasts 3 to 6 weeks per reviewer. Based on the reviews of 3 peer reviewers, the Associate Editor will recommend a decision. Reviewer reports for Diabetes tend to be thorough; 2000 to 4000 word reports are typical given the 3-reviewer model.

After 3 reports return, the Associate Editor synthesizes them and recommends a decision to the EIC. The EIC reviews and issues the final decision.

• Return within 1 to 14 days: EIC priority-score return for below-50th-percentile work.
• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper met the priority-score threshold and is in active review.
• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the ScholarOne portal is appropriate.
• Status changes to "Decision Pending": Reports are in; expect a decision within 1 to 2 weeks.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Diabetes authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 6 weeks at Under Review puts you in the normal middle of Diabetes's 6 to 10 week peer-review window for papers passing priority-score threshold. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the Associate Editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from recruitment timing for the 3-reviewer model (which is harder than 2-reviewer norms) rather than slow reviews. If the portal still says Under Review at the 9-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the Associate Editor granted it. This is normal practice at Diabetes.

What you should NOT do during the 6-to-9-week window is email the editorial office. Diabetes Associate Editors are working academic diabetes researchers managing 30+ active papers around their own laboratories; an inquiry at 6 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your Diabetes paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and Associate Editor cited:

Diabetes Care is the natural ADA cascade for clinical diabetes research where the basic-translational priority bar of Diabetes is not met. Diabetes Care uses ScholarOne at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/dc; editorial contact diabetescare@diabetesjournals.org.

Clinical Diabetes is the ADA cascade for primary-care diabetes practice papers.

Diabetes Spectrum is the ADA cascade for diabetes education and management papers.

Journal of Diabetes (Wiley) is the external cascade for general diabetes research. Wiley uses Editorial Manager at editorialmanager.com/jdiabetes; editorial contact jdiabetes@wiley.com.

Diabetologia is the external EASD cascade for European diabetes research.

Cell Metabolism is the external Cell Press cascade for top-tier metabolism-focused diabetes research. Cell Press uses Editorial Manager at editorialmanager.com/cell-metabolism; editorial contact cellmetabolism@cell.com.

ADA asks reviewers at Diabetes to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

In our pre-submission work with Diabetes-targeted manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent reviewer concerns and the most common reasons papers miss the editorial bar or fail the priority-score gate.

Below-50th-percentile priority framing flagged at EIC priority-score assessment. When the introduction frames the work too narrowly without broader basic-translational diabetes priority, EIC priority-score return below the 50th percentile is common (this is ~50 percent of submissions). The strongest manuscripts frame the introduction around a broader-diabetes mechanism the findings address.

Reproducibility framing gaps surface as 3-reviewer concerns. When data are not deposited in public repositories or methods documentation is thin, reviewers consistently flag reproducibility concerns. The 3-reviewer model means more diverse feedback than 2-reviewer norms; the strongest revisions deposit raw data and code alongside submission.

ADA family cascade offers from Associate Editor. When the Associate Editor concludes the work is rigorous but the basic-translational priority bar of Diabetes is not met, transfer offers to Diabetes Care (clinical diabetes research), Clinical Diabetes (primary-care), or Diabetes Spectrum (education) are common. ADA editors take these transfers seriously.

This page was created from ADA's public Diabetes instructions for authors at diabetesjournals.org/diabetes/pages/instructions-for-authors, ADA Journal Policies documentation (EIC priority-score gate above 50th percentile, Associate Editor versed in subject area assignment, 3-reviewer model, EIC final decision), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Diabetes-targeted manuscripts.

For the ADA diabetes landscape beyond Diabetes flagship, see Diabetes Care (clinical diabetes), Clinical Diabetes (primary-care), Diabetes Spectrum (education), and external diabetes alternatives (Journal of Diabetes, Diabetologia, Cell Metabolism). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top ADA basic-translational diabetes (Diabetes), top ADA clinical diabetes (Diabetes Care), primary-care diabetes (Clinical Diabetes), diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum), general diabetes research (Journal of Diabetes), EASD European diabetes (Diabetologia), or top-tier metabolism (Cell Metabolism).

Reviewers at Diabetes typically draw from 3 basic-translational diabetes subspecialty experts. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any external reviewer sees them via the priority-score gate, and preparing a response template that anticipates 3-reviewer feedback accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Diabetes basic-translational-diabetes-priority bar before submission, our Diabetes pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and methodological weaknesses most likely to surface in the priority-score assessment and reviewer reports.