Econometrica 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Econometrica status labels expose workflow state, not the private judgment of a handling editor. At the Econometric Society, the editor and co-editor team can be screening fit, recruiting reviewers, reading reports, or coordinating a decision while the portal shows the same broad label.

That means elapsed time should be interpreted against the current stage and the journal's published process, never as proof of acceptance or rejection. The useful author action is to keep the manuscript number and files ready, map any new request to the relevant manuscript component, and contact the office only after a documented follow-up threshold. This interpretation is Manusights editorial guidance based on the official workflow, not access to private editorial records.

Read the status as a handoff record: Keep dated notes on editor or co-editor changes, external-review wording, correspondence, and requested files. That helps distinguish routing work from active referee reports.

What the status cannot predict: Economics review timing varies widely, and the portal may not expose every handoff. A portfolio pattern is not a promise for one paper.

Prepare while the paper is moving

• Save the latest stage, date, and any named author action.
• Verify that the manuscript, appendix, code, and replication materials remain synchronized.
• Draft a response structure for likely technical and identification questions.
• If the interval becomes clearly atypical, ask which stage is active and whether the editorial team needs anything from the authors.

*Last reviewed: 2026-10-09.

* Guide summary: If your Econometrica submission shows "Under Review," elapsed time is the most reliable signal. Econometrica has a 2025 Journal Impact Factor of 6.2 in the 2026 JCR release, and is commonly estimated to accept roughly 5 to 8 percent of submissions; the Econometric Society's 2024-2025 editors' report lists 410 summarily rejected papers against 1,127 new submissions received and shows 37% of decisions on new submissions within one month (per the Econometrica annual reports).

The Society's policies refer to a handling Co-Editor but do not describe a separate Editor screening step.

Many submissions are sent to one or more referees, including Associate Editors, but some may be rejected after editorial evaluation without external review. An offer to revise is typically valid for 12 months from the decision date.

For a second opinion before referees see your manuscript, run a Econometrica submission readiness check.

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 Society's policies refer to a handling Co-Editor but do not describe a separate Editor screening step.

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.

Table III of the Society's 2024-2025 report lists new submissions per Co-Editor, most between about 50 and 125 for the year; Econometrica co-editors are working academic economists fitting Econometrica editorial work around their own research.

Econometrica editorial culture is decisive: 410 papers were summarily rejected against 1,127 new submissions in 2024/25. Papers that pass the Econometrica co-editor desk screen have cleared the steepest filter in top-tier economic theory and econometrics publishing.

The Society does not publish status labels or stage durations; the table below is Manusights' illustrative map of the process the Society describes.

Before the paper reaches external referees, it goes through editorial evaluation, and some submissions are rejected without external review when a paper is clearly not a good fit for the journal. In the Society's 2024-2025 editors' report, 410 papers were summarily rejected against 1,127 new submissions received (about 36%); the report gives no separate desk-decision time. 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: a PDF within the 45-page limit (including references and appendices) and the formatting rules, a title page with an abstract of no more than 150 words, keywords and author affiliations, disclosure statements from every author, and, for experimental papers, instructions or survey transcripts (replication materials are required before acceptance and are deposited in the Econometric Society Journals' Community at Zenodo).

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, whose stated scope is all branches of economics.

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.

The Society publishes no such stage; in Manusights' reading, ambiguous-fit papers may be discussed in parallel with the editor + co-editor desk screen 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). If it happens, it is invisible to the author in the portal.

Econometrica sends many submissions to one or more referees (potentially including Associate Editors); the Society publishes no referee count or recruitment time. Some reviews come from Associate Editors, supplementing external referees.

Once referees agree to review, the Society's referee guidelines ask for the report within six weeks (or another comparably prompt date the referee proposes). The guidelines ask referees to organize reports as a summary, essential points (normally no more than three if recommending a revision) and suggestions, and say that two to three pages are sufficient for most papers.

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. Papers accepted in 2024/25 spent an average of 10 months with the journal and 21 months with the authors before acceptance (Econometric Society editors' report).

• Rejection within 1 to 14 days: An early rejection without external review; the Society's 2024-2025 report shows 37% of decisions on new submissions within one month.

• 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. In the Society's 2024-2025 editors' report, 45% of decisions on new submissions came within two months, so many papers are still undecided at 8 weeks. Reports may still be arriving with the co-editor preparing for editorial synthesis.

Most referee-driven delays come from referee availability rather than slow editorial response; the Society's referee guidelines ask for reports within six weeks and say two to three pages are sufficient for most papers. 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 many active papers 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.

The Econometric Society's referee guidelines ask referees to organize reports as a summary, essential points and suggestions. The table below is Manusights' reading of what referees weigh and how to prepare.

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 is common (410 summarily rejected papers against 1,127 new submissions in 2024/25). 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 transfer option. Authors of papers rejected at Econometrica can request the transfer of reports, cover letters, and decision letters to Quantitative Economics (applied econometrics) or Theoretical Economics (theoretical economics); those journals run independent review procedures, but transferring materials can speed up review.

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 (12-month R&R validity, referee and Associate Editor input, referee identities not shared with authors, replication-package deposit required for accepted papers), the Society's 2024-2025 editors' report (410 summarily rejected papers against 1,127 new submissions; decision-time percentages), 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 are drawn from economics subfield experts (potentially including Associate Editors), and the Society states that referee identities are never shared with authors. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any referee sees them, 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.