IEEE Access Review Time

IEEE Access publishes continuously, so accepted papers appear online without waiting for a print issue. This makes the post-acceptance window very short: most accepted papers are live within 1-2 weeks of final acceptance.

IEEE Access uses the ScholarOne Manuscripts submission system and an area-based editorial structure. Submissions are routed to area editors by topic, who then make desk decisions and assign reviewers.

Unlike specialty IEEE Transactions journals with tight editorial boards, IEEE Access has a large editor pool, which helps reduce assignment bottlenecks. The journal explicitly prioritizes speed in its editorial guidelines, and most editors are aware of the expectation.

The journal uses single-anonymized review. Reviewers know who the authors are; authors do not know who reviewed their work. Two reviewers per paper is the minimum IEEE states publicly, though complex or borderline papers sometimes get a third.

Technical quality issues. Despite being a broad-scope journal, IEEE Access reviewers still reject papers that lack novelty, have weak experimental baselines, or make unsubstantiated claims. A revision requested for fundamental technical shortcomings (adding experiments, fixing statistical analysis, clarifying methods) can extend the timeline significantly.

Scope ambiguity. IEEE Access covers a huge range: signal processing, power systems, machine learning, biomedical devices, communications, photonics, robotics, and more. Papers that don't clearly situate themselves within IEEE's scope can be reassigned between area editors, adding 1-2 weeks.

English language problems. Papers with serious grammar or clarity issues are often returned before peer review with a request for professional editing. IEEE has language editing services and sometimes refers authors there, but this adds time.

End-of-year backlogs. Like all IEEE publications, IEEE Access can slow in December and January as editors and reviewers balance end-of-year commitments.

Position your novelty clearly. IEEE Access reviewers are looking for a meaningful technical contribution over the prior art. Your introduction should explicitly state what the state of the art is, what the gap is, and what specific contribution your paper makes. Vague claims of improvement don't survive review.

Include solid baselines. A key complaint in IEEE Access reviews is insufficient comparison. Benchmark your proposed method or system against 3-5 recent competing approaches on relevant datasets or experimental conditions.

Address the APC decision at submission. IEEE Access charges a $2,160 APC. This is due at acceptance, not at submission, but confirm your funding allows it before submitting. Some IEEE members and institutions have waivers or discounts.

Revise quickly. A clean revision that addresses all reviewer comments systematically, with clear tracking of changes, typically gets a fast post-revision decision. IEEE Access editors don't want to send papers back for a third round if the revision is good.

IEEE Access is built for speed. If you're past 8 weeks with no first decision:

• Check your ScholarOne status. "Under Review" means reviewers are active.

• If status shows "Awaiting Reviewer Scores" and 6+ weeks have passed, reviewer recruitment may be stalled. An inquiry to the area editor is appropriate.

• After revision submission, wait 4 weeks before following up.

Contact the editorial office or area editor directly via the system messages if needed.

How this page was created: sources used include IEEE Access's rapid peer review page, IEEE Access bibliometrics, IEEE author guidance, Clarivate JCR, and Manusights review work on engineering and computer-science manuscripts prepared for IEEE venues. We did not test the private ScholarOne workflow or a live IEEE Access submission account; portal-status notes are based on public IEEE materials, documented author experience, and public submission-stage descriptions.

In our analysis of IEEE Access-targeted manuscripts, the failure pattern is a paper that looks technically complete but does not make its IEEE-native contribution obvious in the first two pages. Reviewers can tolerate a broad journal. They do not tolerate a vague contribution, weak baseline set, or generic AI framing that could have been submitted anywhere.

What IEEE Access does well: it has substantial editorial capacity, a binary accept-or-reject decision model, minimum two-reviewer peer review, and a clear speed promise.

Where IEEE Access falls short: the binary decision can be unforgiving for papers that need a moderate revision, and broad-scope routing can slow manuscripts whose IEEE field connection is not obvious.

Use this page if you are deciding whether the fast IEEE Access process is a good fit. Choose a specialty IEEE Transactions journal instead when field-specific prestige and a deeper reviewer pool matter more than speed.

Submit if:

• Speed and open accessibility matter more than field-specific impact, and you need a first decision in 3-6 weeks

• Your paper has a clear technical contribution over prior art with solid baselines against 3-5 recent competing approaches

• The work fits IEEE's broad scope (electrical engineering, electronics, computer science) and you can cover the $2,160 APC

• A Q2 journal with JIF 4.2 is appropriate for this manuscript and you do not need a higher-tier IEEE Transactions placement

Think twice if:

• Field-specific impact matters more than speed, in which case a relevant IEEE Transactions journal is the stronger target

• Your novelty claim is vague or your experimental comparisons are insufficient, as IEEE Access reviewers specifically flag weak baselines

• You are submitting during December-January when editorial backlogs can extend the normally fast timeline

• The paper has serious English language issues that would trigger a return for professional editing before peer review

The Manusights IEEE Access readiness scan. This guide tells you what IEEE Access's editors look for in the first 1-2 weeks of triage. The review tells you whether your paper passes that check before you submit. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting IEEE Access and peer venues; the named patterns below are the same ones the journal's handling editors and outside reviewers flag at the desk-screen and first-review stages.

Median 1.5 months to first decision; methodology-incomplete papers go longer. 60-day money-back guarantee. Your manuscript is not used for model training, and access is limited to the review workflow.

For IEEE Access-targeted manuscripts, three patterns most consistently predict slow review at IEEE Access. Of manuscripts we screened in 2025 targeting IEEE Access and peer venues, the patterns below are the same ones our reviewers flag in real time. The named editorial-culture quirk: IEEE Access reviewers focus on technical correctness; manuscripts without explicit experimental validation or numerical-results documentation extend revision.

Scope-fit ambiguity in the abstract. IEEE Access editors move fastest on manuscripts whose contribution is obviously aligned with the journal's editorial scope (engineering research evaluated on technical soundness rather than perceived novelty (multidisciplinary IEEE megajournal)). The named failure pattern: manuscripts without explicit experimental validation extend revision rounds. Check whether your abstract reads to IEEE Access's scope →

Methods package incomplete for the journal's reviewer pool. IEEE Access reviewers expect specific methodological detail. Methodology sections without numerical-results documentation extend reviewer assignment. Check if your methods package is reviewer-complete →

Reference-list and clean-citation failure mode. Editorial team at IEEE Access screens reference lists for retracted-paper inclusion. Check whether your reference list is clean against Crossref + Retraction Watch →

Editorial detail (for desk-screen calibration). Verify the current Editor-in-Chief and handling-editor list on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a submission cover letter. Submission portal: IEEE Access submission portal. Manuscript constraints: 200-word abstract limit and no strict main-text cap (IEEE Access flexible during peer review).

We reviewed each of these constraints against current journal author guidelines (accessed 2026-05-08); evidence basis for the patterns above includes both publicly documented author-guidelines and our internal anonymized submission corpus.

Manusights submission-corpus signal for IEEE Access. Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to IEEE Access and peer venues in 2025, the editorial-culture mismatch most consistent across the cohort is that IEEE Access reviewers focus on technical correctness; manuscripts without explicit experimental validation or numerical-results documentation extend revision.

In our analysis of anonymized IEEE Access-targeted submissions, the documented review timeline shows a bimodal distribution between manuscripts that clear IEEE Access's scope-fit threshold within the first week and those that get extended editorial-board consultation. Top-line triage is handled by the journal's editorial team; verify the current handling editor on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a cover letter.

Published timelines are medians that mask real variation. Desk rejections skew the median down. Seasonal effects and field-specific reviewer availability affect your specific wait.

Before submitting, an IEEE Access desk-rejection check identifies the scope fit, novelty signal, and citation gaps that trigger rejection at IEEE Access before you enter the timeline.