IEEE Access Review Time

The year-over-year story is stable rather than explosive. IEEE Access dipped from 3.4 in 2023 to 3.6 in 2024, and it has stayed inside the 3.4-4.1 band for eight years. That pattern supports the same practical read authors already have: the journal is a fast, credible engineering venue, but not one whose review speed is driven by a rising prestige curve.

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.

In our pre-submission review work on IEEE Access submissions, three patterns show up repeatedly when papers that looked fast-journal ready end up getting slowed or rejected.

Applied extension without a clear technical delta. IEEE Access will move quickly on solid engineering work, but reviewers still expect a defensible contribution over the prior art. Editors specifically screen whether the paper advances an IEEE-recognizable technical problem rather than simply relocating an existing method to a new dataset or deployment context, and papers without an architectural, systems, or evaluation delta get challenged immediately.

Baseline sections that look complete but are not competitive. The weak version is not no baseline table. It is a table that omits the strongest 2-3 recent comparators, uses mismatched datasets, or reports only accuracy while leaving out latency, robustness, ablation, or implementation cost. Our review of IEEE Access submissions finds that those gaps are one of the fastest ways to turn a nominally quick review into a major critique cycle.

Scope language that sounds broad instead of IEEE-native. Manuscripts framed as generic AI, healthcare, sustainability, or materials papers without a clear electrical, computing, communications, sensing, or systems hook often get bounced between editors. The delay is usually small, but it is one of the cleanest avoidable causes of a slow first decision at IEEE Access.

IEEE's official bibliometrics page and our review work point to the same operational reality: the journal is fast when scope, contribution, and baseline quality are obvious early, and much slower when reviewers have to infer the engineering case from a loosely framed manuscript.

We see this most clearly when a manuscript could plausibly fit an IEEE venue but still does not state, in IEEE-native terms, what system, architecture, signal, or implementation problem it actually advances.

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 $1,850 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.

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 $1,850 APC
• A Q2 journal with JIF 3.6 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

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.