Econometrica 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Econometrica operates the Econometric Society editor + co-editor + Associate Editor + referee model. After confirming author membership and checking the manuscript for compliance with submission requirements, the review process begins and a manuscript number is assigned. The editor will desk reject the paper or send it to a co-editor (who may be the editor), who will lead the review process.

The handling co-editor reads the entire paper and evaluates economic theory or econometrics contribution, methodological rigor, and Econometrica subspecialty routing across econometric theory, microeconomic theory, applied microeconomics, macroeconomics, and applied econometrics.

A co-editor at Econometrica typically handles 60 to 120 manuscripts per year and spends 30 to 90 minutes on the initial read; Econometrica co-editors are working academic economists fitting Econometrica editorial work around their own research.

Econometrica editorial culture is decisive: roughly 1/3 of submissions are desk rejected within less than 2 weeks. Papers that pass the Econometrica co-editor desk screen have cleared the steepest filter in top-tier economic theory and econometrics publishing.

Before the paper reaches external referees, the Econometrica editor performs initial evaluation and either desk rejects or sends to a co-editor. The co-editor then either desk rejects the paper or assigns it to referees. Roughly 1/3 of submissions are desk rejected at this stage within less than 2 weeks. A desk rejection most often means the editor or co-editor concluded that the work has insufficient economic theory or econometrics contribution, methodological issues, or would fit better at a sister Econometric Society journal (Quantitative Economics, Theoretical Economics).

The Econometrica editorial office confirms author membership in the Econometric Society and checks the manuscript for compliance with submission requirements: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with replication data and code, Econometrica template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, and replication-data deposition (Econometric Society Data and Code Archive deposition required for accepted papers).

The editor reads the paper and either desk rejects or sends to a co-editor. The editor's desk-screen evaluates initial fit for Econometrica's economic theory and econometrics focus.

The handling co-editor (who may be the editor) leads the review process. The co-editor reads the paper and evaluates economic theory or econometrics contribution, methodological rigor, and Econometrica subspecialty routing. The co-editor either desk rejects the paper or assigns it to referees.

In parallel with the editor + co-editor desk screen, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the Econometric Society editorial team where peer co-editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at Econometrica flagship or at sister Econometric Society journals (Quantitative Economics for applied econometrics, Theoretical Economics for theoretical economics). This editorial consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 7 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Econometrica co-editors typically invite 2 to 3 referees (potentially including Associate Editors), with referee recruitment typically taking 14 to 28 days. The Associate Editor model means some reviews come from designated AEs with topic-matched expertise, supplementing external referees.

Once 2 to 3 referees agree to review, the typical Econometrica peer-review cycle lasts 8 to 16 weeks per referee. Referees are asked to evaluate economic theory or econometrics contribution, methodological rigor (proofs, identification, structural-model assumptions), and contribution clarity. Referee reports for Econometrica tend to be thorough; 3000 to 6000 word reports are typical given the top-tier economic theory and econometrics focus.

After reports return, the co-editor synthesizes them with AE input. An offer to revise is typically valid for 12 months from the decision date. Extensions may be granted at the discretion of the handling Co-Editor but must be requested within that 12-month period. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 12 to 24 months for Econometrica given economics-discipline norms.

• Rejection within 1 to 14 days: Editor desk rejection per the ~1/3 figure within 2 weeks.

• Rejection within 14 to 28 days: Co-editor desk rejection after editor routing.

• Still Under Review after 4 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed both editor + co-editor desk screens.

• Still Under Review after 16 weeks: Referee-recruitment or referee-report delay. A polite inquiry is appropriate.

• Status changes to "Decision Pending": Reports are in; expect a decision within 2 to 3 weeks after co-editor synthesis with AE input.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Econometrica authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 8 weeks at Under Review puts you in the early-to-middle portion of Econometrica's 3 to 6 month first-decision distribution. Reports may still be arriving with the co-editor preparing for editorial synthesis.

Most referee-driven delays come from the economics-discipline norm of longer referee reports (3000 to 6000 words for Econometrica) rather than slow editorial response. If the portal still says Under Review at the 16-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned referees asked for an extension and the co-editor granted it. This is normal practice at Econometrica.

What you should NOT do during the 8-to-16-week window is email the editorial office. Econometrica co-editors are working academic economists managing 60+ active papers per year around their own research; an inquiry at 8 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your Econometrica paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the referees and co-editor cited:

Quantitative Economics is the natural Econometric Society cascade for applied econometrics papers.

Theoretical Economics is the Econometric Society cascade for theoretical economics papers.

American Economic Review is the external AEA top-tier general economics cascade. AER uses ScholarOne at ScholarOne submission portal; editorial contact aer@aeaweb.org.

Review of Economic Studies (RES) is the external European top-tier general economics cascade.

Journal of Political Economy (JPE) is the external University of Chicago top-tier general economics cascade.

Journal of Econometrics is the external Elsevier econometrics specialty cascade. Journal of Econometrics uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact jecon@elsevier.com.

Quarterly Journal of Economics (QJE) is the external Oxford top-tier general economics cascade.

Econometric Society asks referees at Econometrica to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

Across Econometrica manuscripts, we see three named patterns generate the most consistent referee concerns and the most common reasons papers miss the editorial bar or fail the desk screen. Econometrica failures usually are not surface-level writing failures. They are contribution, proof, identification, and replication-package failures that become visible to the editor, co-editor, Associate Editor, and referees at different points in the review process.

Insufficient theoretical or econometric contribution flagged at editor + co-editor desk screen. When the work lacks clear theoretical or econometric contribution (applied work without theory innovation, or theory without methodological innovation), Econometrica editor or co-editor desk rejection within 2 weeks is common. The strongest manuscripts frame the theoretical or econometric contribution clearly.

Proof or identification gaps surface as AE concerns. When proofs are incomplete or identification strategy is not rigorously justified, AEs consistently flag concerns. The strongest revisions include detailed proofs and explicit identification arguments.

Econometric Society cascade offers from co-editor. When the co-editor concludes the work is rigorous but the Econometrica top-tier bar is not met, transfer offers to Quantitative Economics (applied econometrics) or Theoretical Economics (theoretical economics) are common. Econometric Society editors take these transfers seriously.

Check whether your Econometrica contribution claim is distinct enough ->

Check whether your Econometrica proof and identification package is referee-ready ->

Check whether your Econometrica replication archive supports the empirical claim ->

The first recurring pattern is contribution ambiguity. A paper may contain a technically strong theorem, estimator, or structural model, but if the introduction cannot say why the result changes economic theory or econometric practice relative to the nearest three papers, the co-editor has little reason to spend scarce Econometrica review capacity. Stronger submissions name the closest predecessor, explain the exact limitation, and show why the new result is not only an extension but a generalizable change in how economists should reason.

The second pattern is proof fragility. In our reviews, the most dangerous proof gaps are often not the obvious algebra errors. They are implicit compactness, support, identification, equilibrium-selection, or asymptotic assumptions that the author believes are standard but the AE will ask to see. A top-three-caliber status page should tell authors to use the waiting window to stress-test these assumptions, because a referee report that finds one missing condition can reframe the entire contribution.

The third pattern is replication unreadiness. Econometrica's accepted-paper archive requirement makes the replication package more than a final production step. Referees and AEs evaluate whether the empirical or simulation results are credible, and a disorganized archive weakens that credibility. Stronger manuscripts make code, data, seeds, tables, and figures traceable before the first decision, not after acceptance.

This page was created from Econometric Society's public Econometrica editorial procedures and policies at Econometricsociety metrics page, Econometric Society reviewer guidelines (~33 percent desk rejection rate, less than 2 weeks for desk reject processing, editor + co-editor model with referee + Associate Editor input, single-blind review, 12-month R&R validity, Econometric Society Data and Code Archive deposition required for accepted papers), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Econometrica-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitations: official guidance describes workflow mechanics, so the reviewer-risk guidance here is inferred from those sources plus Manusights manuscript-review patterns, not from private editorial records. In Manusights' manuscript-review archive, 50+ economics and econometrics manuscripts turned on the contribution claim, proof/identification architecture, or replication package rather than the portal status itself.

For the Econometric Society economics landscape beyond Econometrica, start with the Econometrica submission guide, American Economic Review Under Review, Management Science Under Review, and Journal of Econometrics submission guide. Then compare Quantitative Economics, Theoretical Economics, American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Political Economy, Review of Economic Studies, and Journal of Econometrics.

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top economic theory and econometrics, applied econometrics, theoretical economics, top general economics, top European general economics, or econometrics specialty.

Referees at Econometrica typically draw from 2 to 3 economics subfield experts (potentially including Associate Editors) under the Econometric Society single-blind model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any referee sees them via editor + co-editor sequential desk screens, and preparing a comprehensive revision response template that addresses both theoretical/econometric contribution and methodological rigor accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Econometrica top-tier-theory-or-econometrics bar before submission, our Econometrica pre-submission diagnostic flags the contribution and methodological weaknesses most likely to surface in the editor + co-editor + AE evaluation.