Earth-Science Reviews Submission Process

First decisions are weighted toward the reviews-only scope screen, which returns primary empirical research and narrow surveys. For papers sent to reviewers, the path runs long, with full review and revisions taking 6 to 12 months because comprehensive reviews are long and selective, while edge cases diverge sharply: an empirical-submission or scope return is an expedited outcome in the first 7 to 14 days, and a comprehensive review in revision is an outlier that runs 6 to 12 months. Earth-Science Reviews is the leading reviews-only earth-science journal, and the scope screen is the dominant feature of the early timeline.

If you want an outside read before you open Editorial Manager, use the free manuscript readiness check to test whether the manuscript reads as a comprehensive review.

Initial quality check: completeness and policy fit

The first layer is administrative but still decisive. Before the editor reads for synthesis, Editorial Manager verifies authorship and corresponding-author details, competing-interest and funding disclosure, a plagiarism and similarity scan, figure permissions for reproduced material, and a data-availability statement for any synthesized datasets. A submission can look finished in the portal and still be returned if it is primary empirical research, since Earth-Science Reviews publishes reviews only.

Editorial assignment: routing by earth-science topic

Earth-Science Reviews routes to an editor matched to the topic (geology, climate and paleoclimate, oceanography, atmospheric science, geophysics, biogeochemistry, planetary science, or hydrology). The framing you signal in the title and abstract determines which editor reads the contribution first, and a narrow or empirical framing can trigger a scope return before the synthesis is assessed.

Peer review: synthesis assessment after the scope screen

Manuscripts that clear the scope screen move to two or more reviewers under single-blind review. The reviewer job is not only to check that the cited work is correct. It is to decide whether the review is comprehensive and integrative, whether it synthesizes rather than lists the literature, and whether it advances understanding across the earth-science topic.

Final decision: synthesis and scope stay live after reports return

Even after review, the decision still turns on the comprehensiveness and integration of the review. A well-written manuscript can be returned if the reports show it surveys without synthesizing, the scope is too narrow for an authoritative review, or the balance favors the authors' own work.

This is where the first decision comes from. Before any reviewer is assigned, the editor reads the abstract and the structure, and decides whether the manuscript is a comprehensive, integrative review in scope for a reviews-only journal.

At this stage the editor is effectively asking:

• is this a review, or primary empirical research that belongs at Nature Geoscience, GRL, or a specialty venue?

• is it comprehensive and integrative, or a narrow mini-review or a literature list?

• is the topic within the earth sciences and broad enough for an authoritative synthesis?

Because the reviews-only policy is screened first, a fast decision is usually a scope return, not an acceptance. The most common return is a primary empirical paper submitted to a review-only journal.

Papers that clear the scope screen go to two or more reviewers, who typically assess:

• whether the review is comprehensive and integrative

• whether it synthesizes rather than lists the literature

• whether it advances understanding across the earth-science topic

• whether the scope and balance are appropriate for an authoritative review

• clarity of the synthesis in the abstract and structure

Earth-Science Reviews uses single-blind review, so reviewers see author identities while staying anonymous themselves, and comprehensive-review manuscripts often need substantial revision rounds. The initial decision arrives in about 6 to 10 weeks, and full review with revisions runs 6 to 12 months, though a single manuscript can move faster or slower depending on reviewer availability and the topic.

• Reject (fast, pre-review): an editor scope return, usually because the manuscript is primary empirical research, a narrow mini-review, or a literature survey without synthesis. Reframe as a comprehensive synthesis or re-route empirical findings before resubmitting.

• Major revision: substantive reviewer concerns, often about the comprehensiveness, the integration, or the balance of the review. The revised paper usually returns to the same reviewers; respond point by point.

• Minor revision: the review is essentially accepted pending specific fixes. Respond carefully and promptly.

• Accept: uncommon on the first round; usually follows substantial revision of a long review.

Four recurring patterns return otherwise-capable Earth-Science Reviews packages at the scope screen:

• Primary empirical research to a review-only journal. The most common instant return: a strong empirical paper submitted to Earth-Science Reviews, which publishes reviews only. Route empirical findings to Nature Geoscience, GRL, or a specialty venue.
• A narrow mini-review. A review bounded to a small subtopic without comprehensive synthesis reads as below the journal's scope.
• A literature survey that lists rather than integrates. A manuscript that catalogues prior work without synthesizing it reads as a survey, not an authoritative review.
• An unbalanced review. A review weighted toward the authors' own work reads as a position paper rather than an integrative synthesis.

Check whether your Earth-Science Reviews manuscript reads as a comprehensive review for the scope screen →

Check if your Earth-Science Reviews synthesis integrates rather than lists the literature →

Check whether your empirical findings belong at Earth-Science Reviews or a primary-research venue →

This guide tells you what Earth-Science Reviews editors look for at the scope screen; the review tells you whether your synthesis passes the comprehensiveness bar. 60-day money-back guarantee; authors retain all rights and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

In our pre-submission review work on Earth-Science Reviews submissions, three patterns account for most of the manuscripts that are returned at the scope screen, before a reviewer is ever assigned.

The manuscript is primary empirical research

We repeatedly see Earth-Science Reviews submissions that are strong primary empirical papers, sent to a review-only journal in the hope that a high-impact venue will take good data. Because Earth-Science Reviews publishes reviews only, the editor returns empirical research at the scope screen regardless of quality. The fix we push is to confirm, before submission, that the manuscript is a review, and to route the empirical results and figures to Nature Geoscience, GRL, or a specialty venue instead.

The review lists rather than synthesizes

A related pattern is a manuscript that catalogues prior work section by section without integrating it into a coherent synthesis or advancing understanding. The Earth-Science Reviews editor and reviewers read a survey-without-synthesis as below the bar, and we help authors restructure the manuscript around an integrative argument that resolves tensions in the literature, because synthesis, not coverage, is what the journal rewards.

The scope is too narrow for an authoritative review

The third pattern is a careful review bounded to a small subtopic, where the scope is too narrow for the comprehensive, authoritative synthesis Earth-Science Reviews expects. The editor registers a mini-review and returns it, and we help authors either broaden the scope to a topic that merits an authoritative review or route to a specialty review venue, because comprehensiveness is part of the Earth-Science Reviews bar. In our Earth-Science Reviews readiness checks we confirm the abstract frames an integrative synthesis, the figures and references span the field rather than the authors' own work, and the data-availability statement covers any synthesized datasets, because those are the components the editor and reviewers read before the review is judged comprehensive.

Earth-Science Reviews (Elsevier, JIF 10.4, reviews only) sits among several adjacent venues, and the scope screen is partly a routing decision:

• choose Nature Geoscience or Geophysical Research Letters for primary empirical earth-science findings

• choose Science Advances for a broad, high-impact empirical result with open access

• choose Reviews of Geophysics for a geophysics-focused review (also broadly unsolicited)

• note that Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences is invitation-only, not an unsolicited route

• stay with Earth-Science Reviews when the manuscript is a comprehensive, integrative earth-science review

Last verified June 2026 against Earth-Science Reviews' ScienceDirect page and Elsevier author guidance. Editorial timing shifts between updates; treat the numbers as planning ranges and confirm the current figures on ScienceDirect before you submit.