Hepatology 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision

Hepatology publishes no status names or stage durations. The durations below are unofficial estimates.

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, an AASLD handling editor at Hepatology evaluates whether the hepatology significance warrants Hepatology's selective editorial slots. The Early Reject option allows the editor to bypass external review for clearly unsuitable submissions. A desk rejection can mean the handling editor concluded that the work would fit better at a sister AASLD title (Hepatology Communications for open-access, Liver Transplantation for transplant-specific) or that the broad-hepatology audience appeal is uncertain.

The AASLD editorial office checks that files are complete against the Instructions for Authors: the manuscript as a Word document (a single file with artwork inside the text is accepted at first submission), supplemental digital content separate, reporting checklists where applicable (CONSORT for randomized controlled trials, STROBE for cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, ARRIVE for animal work), the cover letter, a signed Copyright Transfer and Author Agreement Form from every author, ethics-statement documentation, and, for clinical trials, proof of institutional review board approval from all participating centers, the approved protocol, patient information sheet, and statistical analysis plan.

The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates hepatology significance, methodological rigor, and broad-hepatology audience fit. The handling editor can choose to Early Reject if the manuscript is incomplete or unlikely to be accepted, saving external reviewer bandwidth.

Hepatology's instructions do not describe an internal editor-discussion step. AASLD's journals page advertises transfers within the AASLD portfolio of journals with expedited review and decision.

Hepatology uses anonymous external reviewers. The journal publishes no reviewer count or recruitment time, and recruiting topic-matched reviewers (e.g., hepatocellular carcinoma specialists, viral hepatitis researchers, transplant hepatologists) can take time because they are in demand.

Once reviewers agree to review, the peer-review cycle runs on reviewer availability, and the journal publishes no first-decision target. Reviewers are anonymous; their identities are not shared with authors. Reviewers are likely to focus on hepatology significance, methodological rigor, and reproducibility.

After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. The Editor allows a single resubmission only after the initial disposition.

These thresholds are unofficial rules of thumb; Hepatology publishes no timing targets.

• Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.

• Early Reject within 1 to 2 weeks: Handling editor Early Reject (without peer review) for manuscripts unlikely to be accepted.

• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the steepest AASLD filter.

• Still Under Review after 8 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the submission portal is appropriate.

• Status changes to "Reports Received": Reports are in; expect a decision within 1 to 2 weeks.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Hepatology authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: not necessarily. Hepatology publishes no first-decision window, so 5 weeks at Under Review is not by itself a sign of a problem. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the handling editor preparing a recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for hepatology specialists rather than slow reviews.

If the portal still says Under Review at the 7-week mark, a common explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the handling editor granted it.

During the 5-to-7-week window, hold the status inquiry unless the manuscript record shows a technical problem, an ethics disclosure changes, or a clinical-trial documentation issue needs correction. A useful inquiry names the manuscript ID, current status, submission date, and one concrete reason for the check; it should not ask whether the paper is likely to be accepted.

If your Hepatology paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and handling editor cited:

Hepatology Communications is the most natural AASLD cascade because AASLD's journals page advertises transfers within the AASLD portfolio with expedited review and decision, although Hepatology Communications may send a transferred paper for a second round of review if the reviews are not transferred with the manuscript. Hepatology Communications has an open-access publishing model.

Journal of Hepatology is the EASL cascade option for European-hepatology-focused work. EASL operates independently from AASLD; reports do not transfer, but Journal of Hepatology editors may recognize AASLD reviewer reports informally.

Gastroenterology is the AGA cascade option for hepatology papers with broader GI implications. AGA operates independently from AASLD.

Liver Transplantation is the AASLD family cascade for transplant-specific work.

Reviewers at Hepatology are likely to weigh four things. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

In our pre-submission work with Hepatology manuscripts, three patterns generate the most consistent reviewer concerns we see at Hepatology. The common failure is not a vague "liver journal fit" problem. It is that the abstract, endpoint logic, and reporting package do not let clinical and basic-hepatology reviewers reach the same conclusion quickly.

Narrow hepatology framing flagged for broad-audience fit. When the introduction frames the work too narrowly around one liver disease subfield without broader-hepatology generalization, AASLD reviewers consistently flag broad-audience concerns. The strongest manuscripts frame around broader hepatology principles.

Check your broad-hepatology framing →

CONSORT/ARRIVE-compliance gaps surface as reviewer requests for clarification. When reporting-checklist items are incomplete or animal-study documentation is thin, AASLD reviewers consistently flag for revision. The single-resubmission policy at Hepatology means initial revisions must address all reviewer concerns thoroughly.

Check your liver-study reporting package →

AASLD venue mismatch flagged by handling editor. When the handling editor concludes the work is sound but the broad-hepatology audience appeal is uncertain, transfer offers to Hepatology Communications or Early Reject decisions are common. Authors should consider Hepatology Communications for open-access work or broader-scope hepatology papers.

Check your Hepatology versus AASLD sister-title route →

We have reviewed 50+ manuscripts targeting Hepatology, Journal of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Hepatology Communications. Full Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on your manuscript.

In our pre-submission review work across liver and GI targets, we see five recurring preventable risks before peer review: a narrow disease-subfield claim, incomplete clinical or animal reporting, under-described biopsy or lab endpoints, weak reproducibility language, and a mismatch between AASLD flagship scope and a stronger sister-journal route. Source limitation: official guidance explains submission rules and peer-review policy, but it cannot diagnose whether your abstract, first figure or table, methods appendix, reporting package, and cover letter satisfy Hepatology's broad-liver-disease bar.

This page was created from AASLD's public author guidance at the Hepatology Instructions for Authors, AASLD editorial documentation including the anonymous peer review and Early Reject options, AASLD single-resubmission policy, and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Hepatology-targeted manuscripts.

For the AASLD hepatology landscape beyond Hepatology, see Hepatology Communications (open-access AASLD), Liver Transplantation (transplant-specific), and sister hepatology titles (Journal of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is broad-hepatology (Hepatology), open-access (Hepatology Communications), transplant-specific (Liver Transplantation), European-hepatology (Journal of Hepatology), or broader-GI (Gastroenterology).

Reviewers may bring both clinical and basic-hepatology perspectives, so preparing a response template that addresses both helps revision rounds.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Hepatology hepatology-significance-plus-methodological-rigor bar before submission, our Hepatology pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing weaknesses and reporting-checklist gaps most likely to surface in reviewer reports.