IEEE Access 'Under Review': What the Status Means

The first status is not scientific review. It is the journal checking whether the submitted article can be processed. IEEE Access requires a source file and a matching PDF, short biographies for all authors, author metadata, keywords, disclosure material, and any supplementary material needed for review. The submission checklist also warns that articles with poor grammar can be immediately rejected and that references should be relevant, accurate, and checked for retractions.

This stage feels minor, but it matters. IEEE Access is fast partly because it uses strict intake rules. If the files are inconsistent, the author list is mismatched, the article type is wrong, or the keywords are too vague to route the paper, the manuscript may be returned before the Associate Editor spends time on it.

IEEE Access says articles go through an initial prescreening process before Associate Editor handling. This is where the journal can reject or return a manuscript for problems that are visible before full review: out-of-scope work, poor readability, missing biographies, unsupported article type, duplicate submission risk, retracted references, or serious template issues.

For authors watching the portal, the most important point is that Under Review after this step is a positive routing signal, not an acceptance signal. It means the paper survived the part of the process where obvious package problems can stop the manuscript before external review.

The Associate Editor read is the first serious editorial judgment. IEEE Access states that if a submission passes prescreening, it is assigned to an experienced Associate Editor who performs a second vetting for peer-review suitability based on quality, technical content, and scope. This is where the journal decides whether the paper is suitable for the IEEE Access audience, not merely whether the files are complete.

IEEE Access editorial culture is built around scale, speed, and technical correctness. The journal says it has a geographically diverse pool of more than 800 Associate Editors, and its public author page reports a 20 percent average acceptance rate. That combination matters: the journal is broad, but it is not a soft filter. An Associate Editor can move fast because the question is fairly concrete: does the article make an original, technically correct contribution that belongs inside IEEE fields of interest?

Many authors assume Under Review means reviewers are already reading the manuscript. Sometimes it does. In IEEE Access, it can also mean the Associate Editor is recruiting reviewers. The journal's reviewer pool is broad, but the exact match still matters: a wireless communication article, power electronics design, biomedical signal-processing method, or computer-vision benchmark may each require a different reviewer mix.

The Associate Editor invites reviewers until at least two independent reviews are in, and recruitment can take longer when the paper sits between subfields or uses specialized datasets, hardware, or software. That recruitment period can happen in parallel with Associate Editor routing, keyword checks, and article-type review, so the portal can look static while real editorial work is happening.

In parallel with reviewer invitation, the Associate Editor may still be checking whether the article type matches the actual paper. IEEE Access has many manuscript types: Research Article, Topical Review, Theory, Survey, Perspective, Applied Research, Negative Result, Methods, Tutorial, Standards, Comment, Reply, Debate, Exposition, Meta-Analysis, and Unsolved Problem. The submission guidelines are unusually specific about what each type must do.

This matters for status interpretation. A paper labeled Survey but written as a descriptive narrative review can slow while the editor decides whether the article type is defensible. A Methods paper without enough methodological detail can stall because the editor needs reviewers who can evaluate both the technical method and the claimed application. A Meta-Analysis combines the results of multiple published studies, so reviewers may expect PRISMA-style reporting even though IEEE Access is an engineering journal; its submission guidelines do not name a reporting standard for the type.

Once reviewers accept, the manuscript is in the phase most authors mean by Under Review. IEEE Access says its peer-review process takes about 4 weeks on average from submission to accept-or-reject decision. The fast timeline is connected to the journal's binary decision model: authors receive an accept or reject decision with constructive feedback rather than months of open-ended revision cycles.

Active review is still a real review. IEEE Access says all article types undergo rigorous peer review, and the acceptance requirements include originality, enhancement of the existing body of knowledge, and results not submitted or published elsewhere. Reviewers will usually check whether the methods are reproducible, whether the baselines are current, whether the results support the claims, and whether the work fits IEEE fields of interest.

After reviewer scores arrive, the Associate Editor has to turn the reports into a recommendation. In the portal this still reads Under Review. The reason it matters is that IEEE Access does not operate like a typical major-revision-heavy journal. The binary structure means the editor has to decide whether the paper is acceptable with minor edits, rejected with comments, or rejected with the possibility of one resubmission after updates.

If the paper is technically sound but underexplained, the decision may read harsh because the journal is trying to avoid endless revision loops. That does not mean the review was superficial. It means IEEE Access compresses the revision logic into a clearer accept-or-reject outcome.

Do not email during the first 4 weeks unless IEEE Access asks for a file, an ethics issue arises, or the portal shows a clear technical problem. The journal's public speed promise makes authors anxious, but a short quiet period is normal.

• At 4 weeks: Check the portal. Still Under Review at this point puts you at the journal's average, not behind it. Do not assume delay means rejection.

• At 6 weeks: A polite inquiry is reasonable if there has been no visible movement. Ask whether the manuscript is still in reviewer recruitment or awaiting reviewer-score return.

• At 8 weeks: Follow up more specifically. Mention the manuscript ID, title, and submission date. Ask whether the editorial office needs anything from the authors.

• After resubmission: Wait about 4 weeks before asking, because the editor may need to verify the response against prior reviewer concerns.

Use ieeeaccess@ieee.org only when the portal's EDITORIAL CONTACT route does not answer the question or the issue is administrative. The stronger inquiry is short and operational: manuscript ID, current status, elapsed time, and one question.

No, not by itself. At IEEE Access, 6 weeks is longer than the average 4-week peer-review target, but it is not automatically a negative signal. The likely explanations are reviewer recruitment, a delayed reviewer score, article-type uncertainty, or Associate Editor synthesis after mixed reviews. The best action is not to send a worried message asking whether the paper will be accepted.

The best action is to prepare for the binary decision the journal will send: if accepted, final files and APC steps move quickly; if rejected with comments, the author needs a clean update list, corrected figures, and a technical response that shows the paper can be resubmitted or redirected without repeating the same weakness. For the structure of that reply, see how to write an IEEE Access response to reviewers.

Because a revise decision at IEEE Access is formally a reject with one resubmission allowed, draft the reply early; the IEEE Access response to reviewers guide shows how to map every comment to a page and line so that single attempt counts.

The IEEE Access review-time page answers the broad timing question: how long IEEE Access usually takes from submission to decision. This page answers the status-anxiety question: what Under Review means today and what the author should do while waiting. Keep the two separate. If you only need the average first-decision window, use the review-time page. If your manuscript is already in the portal and the label has not moved, use this status page.

The status risk is rarely that authors misunderstand the word review. The risk is that they wait passively through Under Review and then receive a binary decision they could have prepared for. In the recent pre-submission review work for broad IEEE, engineering AI, signal-processing, and applied-computing venues, the IEEE Access-like packages that created the most avoidable status anxiety were not the weakest papers.

They were technically credible papers with a mismatch between the status stage and the author's preparation. The failure pattern is practical: public author pages explain the workflow, but they rarely connect Under Review to the exact manuscript components reviewers will check.

IEEE Access contribution visible in the experiments but not the abstract. Many engineering manuscripts have real technical work in the methods, figures, and supplementary material, but the abstract reads like a generic AI or systems paper. IEEE Access Associate Editors move quickly when the contribution to the engineering community is visible in the first 100 to 150 words. If Under Review lasts several weeks, prepare a revised abstract option that states the exact problem, method, dataset or hardware context, and quantitative result without hype.

IEEE Access baselines current but not defensible. A paper can include many comparisons and still be vulnerable if the baseline set misses the strongest recent method, uses inconsistent evaluation settings, or relies on a private dataset without enough detail. Reviewers do not need to dislike the idea to reject the package; they only need to show that the validation does not support the claim. While waiting, build a table that maps every performance claim to the baseline, dataset, metric, code or hardware setting, and figure where it appears.

IEEE Access article type chosen for convenience rather than substance. The journal gives authors unusual flexibility, but that flexibility creates a trap. A Survey needs synthesis and selection logic, not a list of papers. A Methods article needs methodological contribution, not just an implementation. An Applied Research article needs practical validation, not a conceptual prototype. If the paper is Under Review, draft a response that explains why the chosen article type is correct and what evidence in the manuscript proves it.

Reporting framework mismatch in mixed-domain engineering papers. IEEE Access publishes biomedical engineering, clinical AI, sensor systems, and meta-analytic work, so some papers need reporting frameworks that engineering authors overlook. PRISMA belongs with systematic reviews and meta-analyses; CONSORT, STROBE, or ARRIVE may matter when a paper includes clinical trials, observational data, or animal-model validation. Do not add these names to a pure signal-processing paper, but do verify the right checklist when the study design calls for it.

Source limitation: IEEE Access is the authority for live status labels, portal behavior, APC policy, and current submission requirements. Our part is the manuscript-risk reading that comes from pre-submission review work. We cannot see your IEEE Author Portal record, and we have no inside knowledge of any Associate Editor's decision.

Run an IEEE Access status-stage manuscript check if you want to prepare before the decision letter arrives.

IEEE Access can reject a manuscript while still giving useful comments. Because the process is binary, authors sometimes read that as final failure. It may instead mean the current article is not acceptable as submitted, but the reviewer and Associate Editor feedback identifies a path for resubmission or redirection.

If the letter asks for updates before resubmission, do not treat the next upload as a normal revision. Prepare a separate update list that answers each reviewer concern, identifies actual manuscript changes, and explains any new experiment, baseline, or figure. IEEE Access's own submission checklist says that a previously rejected article encouraged for update and resubmission should include a complete list of updates with reviewer concerns, author responses, and actual changes.

Acceptance moves quickly. IEEE Access says accepted authors submit final files, complete electronic copyright, and pay the APC. The post-acceptance guide says the accepted version is published Early Access on IEEE Xplore within 2 to 3 days after final files are submitted. That speed is useful only if the final manuscript, graphical abstract, biographies, and publication files are ready.

Do not submit the manuscript elsewhere while IEEE Access is reviewing it. Do not send multiple status emails in the first month. Do not rewrite the manuscript in panic before seeing the decision letter. Do not assume that the paper is doomed because Under Review has lasted longer than the advertised average. The useful preparation is quieter: audit the baselines, validate the article type, clean the reference list, and prepare a response structure for the most likely reviewer objections.

For a manuscript already under review, the IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology Under Review status guide covers how to read the status and the point at which a status query is reasonable.

Once a submission reaches the portal, the IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics Under Review status guide interprets the holding period and what the label does and does not tell you.

Waiting on a decision? The IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications Under Review status guide explains what the status means at each stage and when nudging the editor makes sense.