IEEE TPAMI 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision
If your IEEE TPAMI submission shows Under Review, here is what the IEEE Associate Editor is doing during each stage and when to follow up.
What to do next
Already submitted to IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence? Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next step.
The useful next step is understanding what the status usually means at IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, how long the wait normally runs, and when a follow-up is actually reasonable.
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence review timeline: what the data shows
Time to first decision is the most actionable number. What happens after varies by manuscript and reviewer availability.
What shapes the timeline
- Desk decisions are fast. Scope problems surface within days.
- Reviewer availability is the main variable after triage. Specialized topics take longer to assign.
- Revision rounds reset the clock. Major revision typically adds 6-12 weeks per round.
What to do while waiting
- Track status in the submission portal — status changes signal active review.
- Wait at least the journal's stated median before sending a status inquiry.
- Prepare revision materials in parallel if you expect a revise-and-resubmit decision.
Last reviewed: 2026-05-17.
Quick answer: If your IEEE TPAMI submission shows "Under Review," elapsed time is the most reliable signal. IEEE TPAMI has a 2024 JCR impact factor of 23.6, accepts roughly 15 to 20 percent of submissions, and IEEE reports that reviewers are typically given 4 to 6 weeks to complete and submit their reviews with Associate Editors given 1 to 2 weeks to analyze the reviewer's comments and make a recommendation (per IEEE TPAMI information for authors). The IEEE Computer Society strongly advocates that 3 reviews are obtained for every paper. TPAMI publishes methodology, not pure applications, and comprehensive comparison to state-of-the-art with standardized benchmarks (ImageNet, COCO, ADE20K, etc.) and recent baselines are expected. Unlike biomedical journals, TPAMI does not apply CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, or ARRIVE reporting checklists; methodology-paper rigor is instead defined by IEEE Computer Society standardized-benchmark expectations plus reproducibility standards including released code and trained models.
For a second opinion before reviewers see your manuscript, run a IEEE TPAMI submission readiness check.
Submission portal and editorial contact: IEEE TPAMI uses ScholarOne Manuscripts at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tpami. Editorial questions should reference the manuscript ID; tpami at computer.ieee.org handles editorial-office inquiries. The IEEE TPAMI information for authors at ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/for-authors and the IEEE Signal Processing Society information for authors page cover the editorial workflow. For broader status-tracking guidance across CS publishers, the Cell Press author status portal at cell.com/information-for-authors/after-you-submit gives useful baseline patterns for reading status fields across editorial portals.
How IEEE handles a TPAMI submission
IEEE TPAMI operates the IEEE Computer Society Editor-in-Chief + Associate Editor model. The handling Associate Editor reads the paper and evaluates pattern-analysis-and-machine-intelligence methodology significance, comparison to state-of-the-art rigor, standardized benchmark coverage (ImageNet, COCO, ADE20K, KITTI, Cityscapes, etc.), and TPAMI subspecialty routing across computer vision, machine learning theory, pattern recognition, computational imaging, and multimedia analysis. An Associate Editor at IEEE TPAMI typically handles 60 to 120 manuscripts per year and spends 30 to 60 minutes on the initial read; IEEE TPAMI Associate Editors are working academic computer vision and machine learning researchers fitting TPAMI editorial work around their own laboratories.
IEEE TPAMI editorial culture is decisive: desk decisions are fast; scope problems surface within days. Papers that pass the IEEE TPAMI Associate Editor screen have cleared the steepest filter in IEEE pattern-analysis-and-machine-intelligence publishing.
IEEE TPAMI's review pipeline
Status | What is happening | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
Submitted | Administrative processing at IEEE TPAMI editorial office via ScholarOne | Day 0 to 3 |
With Associate Editor | Associate editor evaluating methodology fit + benchmark coverage | Days 3 to 21 (1 to 3 week target) |
Editor Discussion | Internal IEEE Computer Society editorial consultation for ambiguous fit | Days 5 to 14 (parallel; invisible to author) |
Under Review | 3 reviewers invited or actively reviewing (4 to 6 week reviewer target) | Days 21 to 112 |
Required Reviews Complete | Associate Editor analyzing reviewer comments + recommendation (1 to 2 week target) | 7 to 14 days |
Decision Pending | EIC reviewing recommendation | 7 to 14 days |
Decision Sent | Reject, R&R, or accept | Check email |
The Associate Editor desk screen (about 40 to 50 percent rejected)
Before the paper reaches external reviewers, an IEEE TPAMI Associate Editor evaluates whether the methodology significance, comparison to state-of-the-art rigor, and standardized benchmark coverage warrant IEEE TPAMI's editorial slots. About 40 to 50 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage within 1 to 3 weeks. A desk rejection most often means the editor concluded that the work is pure application without methodology contribution, lacks comprehensive comparison to state-of-the-art, has insufficient standardized benchmark coverage, or would fit better at a sister IEEE journal (IEEE Transactions on Image Processing for image processing, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems for neural network theory, IEEE Computer Vision conferences for CVPR/ICCV/ECCV).
Day 0 to 3: Administrative processing
The IEEE TPAMI editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with benchmark results on standardized datasets, IEEE template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor naming methodology contribution and benchmark coverage, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement (including code and pretrained model release where applicable).
Days 3 to 21: IEEE TPAMI Associate Editor desk screen
The Associate Editor reads the paper and evaluates pattern-analysis-and-machine-intelligence methodology significance, comparison to state-of-the-art, standardized benchmark coverage, and IEEE TPAMI subspecialty routing.
Days 5 to 14: IEEE Computer Society editorial consultation (parallel for ambiguous cases)
In parallel with the Associate Editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the IEEE Computer Society editorial team where peer Associate Editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at IEEE TPAMI or at sister IEEE journals. This editorial consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.
Days 21 to 35: External reviewer recruitment
IEEE TPAMI Associate Editors invite 3 reviewers per IEEE Computer Society advocacy, with reviewer recruitment typically taking 7 to 14 days. The 3-reviewer model is harder to recruit than 2-reviewer norms, and reviewers with topic-matched pattern-analysis-and-machine-intelligence subspecialty expertise are scarce.
Days 21 to 112: Active peer review (4 to 6 week reviewer target)
Once 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical IEEE TPAMI peer-review cycle lasts 4 to 6 weeks per reviewer per IEEE guidance. Reviewers are asked to evaluate methodology significance, comparison to state-of-the-art rigor, benchmark coverage adequacy, and reproducibility. Reviewer reports for IEEE TPAMI tend to be thorough; 2000 to 4000 word reports are typical given the 3-reviewer model.
Day 112 onward: Editorial synthesis and decision
After 3 reports return, the Associate Editor is given 1 to 2 weeks to analyze the reviewer's comments and make a recommendation. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 6 to 14 months for successful papers, including revision rounds.
When to worry
- Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.
- Rejection within 7 to 21 days: Associate Editor desk rejection per the 40 to 50 percent figure.
- Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Associate Editor filter.
- Still Under Review after 16 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or 3-reviewer-model delay. A polite inquiry via the ScholarOne portal is appropriate.
- Status changes to "Decision Pending": 3 reports are in; expect a decision within 1 to 2 weeks after Associate Editor analysis.
"My paper has been Under Review for 10 weeks. Is that bad?"
This is the most common anxiety we hear from IEEE TPAMI authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 10 weeks at Under Review puts you in the normal middle of IEEE TPAMI's 8 to 16 week full peer-review distribution for the 3-reviewer model. Reports may still be arriving with the Associate Editor preparing for the 1 to 2 week analysis-and-recommendation window. Most reviewer-driven delays come from the 3-reviewer model recruitment difficulty (the IEEE Computer Society strongly advocates 3 reviews) rather than slow reviews. If the portal still says Under Review at the 16-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one or more of the 3 assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the Associate Editor granted it. This is normal practice at IEEE TPAMI.
What you should NOT do during the 10-to-16-week window is email the editorial office. IEEE TPAMI Associate Editors are working academic computer vision researchers managing 60+ active papers per year; an inquiry at 10 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.
What to do while waiting
- Do not email the editorial office during the first 10 weeks unless an urgent ethics issue surfaces.
- Do not submit the paper anywhere else while it is Under Review at IEEE TPAMI. IEEE has explicit prohibitions on dual submission.
- Prepare a point-by-point response template for likely reviewer concerns: methodology significance, comparison to state-of-the-art (anticipating requests for additional recent baselines), standardized benchmark coverage (anticipating requests for additional benchmarks beyond initial submission), reproducibility (anticipating requests for code release if not already public).
- If you have related work submitted elsewhere or recently published, prepare disclosure language for when revisions are requested.
- Read recent IEEE TPAMI papers in your subfield to calibrate the current editorial bar.
Readiness check
While you wait on IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, scan your next manuscript.
The scan takes about 1-2 minutes. Use the result to decide whether to revise before the decision comes back.
If IEEE TPAMI rejects: sister-journal cascade with reasoning
If your IEEE TPAMI paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and Associate Editor cited:
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing is the natural IEEE Signal Processing Society cascade for image processing methodology papers.
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems is the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society cascade for neural network theory.
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia is the IEEE cascade for multimedia analysis.
IEEE Computer Vision conferences (CVPR, ICCV, ECCV) are the natural cascades for conference-format papers; CVPR uses a separate openreview.net submission system.
International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV) is the external Springer cascade for top-tier computer vision methodology. IJCV uses Editorial Manager at editorialmanager.com/visi; editorial contact ijcv at springer.com.
JMLR (Journal of Machine Learning Research) is the external machine learning cascade; JMLR uses jmlr.org submission system.
How IEEE TPAMI compares to nearby alternatives
Feature | IEEE TPAMI | IEEE Transactions on Image Processing | International Journal of Computer Vision | CVPR conference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Desk-rejection rate | 40 to 50 percent | 30 to 40 percent | 40 to 50 percent | Conference-format, all submissions reviewed |
Desk-decision speed | 1 to 3 weeks | 1 to 3 weeks | 2 to 4 weeks | Conference deadline cycle |
Total review time (post-screen) | 8 to 16 weeks (3-reviewer model) | 6 to 12 weeks | 6 to 12 weeks | 3 to 4 months (annual cycle) |
Reviewer count | 3 (IEEE CS advocates 3) | 2 to 3 | 2 to 3 | 3 to 4 |
Peer-review model | Double-blind + 3 reviewers + AE analysis | Double-blind + AE | Double-blind + AE | Double-blind conference |
Editorial bar | Top pattern analysis + machine intelligence methodology | Image processing methodology | Top computer vision methodology | Top CS conference vision |
Submit if your paper passed the desk
If your IEEE TPAMI paper is Under Review past 3 weeks, you have cleared the Associate Editor desk-screen. Use the waiting window to prepare a thorough revision response template anticipating 3-reviewer model feedback (with diverse perspectives on methodology and benchmarks).
IEEE TPAMI submission readiness check takes about 5 minutes.
Think twice before assuming "Under Review" means certain acceptance
IEEE TPAMI Associate Editors retain discretion to reject after partial review if reviewer reports surface methodology or benchmark-coverage concerns the desk screen did not catch. The 15 to 20 percent overall acceptance rate means most post-desk-screen papers still receive a substantial-revision or reject decision.
For a pre-upload diagnostic of methodology significance framing and benchmark coverage, run a IEEE TPAMI pre-submission diagnostic before reviewer reports surface those concerns.
Last verified: IEEE TPAMI information for authors at ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9471035 and IEEE Computer Society editorial documentation.
The IEEE TPAMI reviewer experience
IEEE asks reviewers at TPAMI to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.
Reviewer focus area | What IEEE TPAMI asks reviewers to evaluate | How to prepare for it |
|---|---|---|
Methodology significance | Does the work advance pattern analysis or machine intelligence methodology (not pure application)? | Frame the introduction around the methodology contribution. TPAMI publishes methodology, not pure applications. |
Comparison to state-of-the-art | Does the work comprehensively compare to state-of-the-art with recent baselines? | Include comprehensive comparison to recent state-of-the-art baselines (within the last 1 to 2 years). |
Standardized benchmark coverage | Does the work include standardized benchmark results (ImageNet, COCO, ADE20K, KITTI, Cityscapes, etc.) as appropriate? | Include standardized benchmark results on widely-used datasets. Custom datasets alone face lower priority. |
Reproducibility | Could another team reproduce the central methodology with the code and methods as written? | Use detailed methodology documentation. IEEE TPAMI strongly encourages code release. Deposit code and pretrained models in public repositories. |
Common patterns we see that miss the IEEE TPAMI bar
In our pre-submission work with IEEE TPAMI-targeted manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent reviewer concerns and the most common reasons papers miss the editorial bar or fail the desk screen.
Pure-application framing flagged at Associate Editor screen. When the work presents an application without methodology contribution, IEEE TPAMI desk rejection within 1 to 3 weeks is common. TPAMI publishes methodology, not pure applications. The strongest manuscripts frame the methodology contribution clearly.
Benchmark coverage gaps surface as reviewer concerns. When the work does not include standardized benchmark results on widely-used datasets (ImageNet, COCO, ADE20K, KITTI, Cityscapes, etc.), reviewers consistently request additional benchmarks. The strongest manuscripts include comprehensive benchmark coverage from the start.
IEEE family cascade offers from Associate Editor. When the Associate Editor concludes the work is rigorous but the methodology priority bar of IEEE TPAMI is not met, transfer offers to IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (image processing methodology), IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (neural network theory), or IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (multimedia analysis) are common. IEEE editors take these transfers seriously.
Methodology note
This page was created from IEEE's public TPAMI information for authors at ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9471035, IEEE Computer Society editorial documentation (3-reviewer advocacy, 4 to 6 week reviewer target, 1 to 2 week Associate Editor analysis-and-recommendation window, double-blind peer review, methodology-not-applications focus, standardized benchmark coverage expectation), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with IEEE TPAMI-targeted manuscripts.
What to read next
For the IEEE pattern-analysis-and-machine-intelligence landscape beyond IEEE TPAMI, see IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (image processing methodology), IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (neural network theory), IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (multimedia analysis), IEEE Computer Vision conferences (CVPR, ICCV, ECCV), and external computer vision alternatives (International Journal of Computer Vision, JMLR, NeurIPS, ICML). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top-tier pattern-analysis-machine-intelligence journal methodology (IEEE TPAMI), image processing methodology (IEEE TIP), neural network theory (IEEE TNNLS), multimedia analysis (IEEE TMM), conference vision (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV), top journal computer vision (IJCV), machine learning theory (JMLR), or top ML conferences (NeurIPS, ICML).
Reviewers at IEEE TPAMI typically draw from 3 pattern-analysis-and-machine-intelligence subspecialty experts under a double-blind 3-reviewer model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any external reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses methodology significance, benchmark coverage, and reproducibility accelerates revision rounds substantially.
For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the IEEE TPAMI methodology-plus-benchmark bar before submission, our IEEE TPAMI pre-submission diagnostic flags the methodology framing and benchmark coverage weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.
Frequently asked questions
Your manuscript has cleared IEEE ScholarOne admin checks and is being evaluated. Reviewers are typically given 4 to 6 weeks to complete and submit their reviews, and Associate Editors are given 1 to 2 weeks to analyze the reviewer's comments and make a recommendation. The IEEE Computer Society strongly advocates that 3 reviews are obtained for every paper.
IEEE TPAMI operates two tracks: rapid scope-based desk rejection within 1 to 3 weeks, and full peer review typically 8 to 16 weeks for the 3-reviewer model. Desk decisions are fast; scope problems surface within days. TPAMI publishes methodology, not pure applications, and comprehensive comparison to state-of-the-art with standardized benchmarks (ImageNet, COCO, ADE20K, etc.) and recent baselines are expected.
Wait at least 10 weeks before inquiring. Contact via the IEEE ScholarOne portal at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tpami referencing your manuscript ID; tpami at computer.ieee.org handles editorial-office inquiries.
No. IEEE TPAMI's 8 to 16 week full peer-review window for the 3-reviewer model means 10 weeks puts you in the normal middle of the active review distribution. Reports may still be arriving.
Your paper passed the Associate Editor desk screen and 3 reviewers have been invited (the IEEE Computer Society strongly advocates 3 reviews). IEEE TPAMI operates double-blind review for most submissions; the Associate Editor selects reviewers with topic-matched pattern analysis and machine intelligence expertise.
Yes. The 8 to 16 week peer-review window plus revision rounds means many papers take 90+ days. Multiple revision rounds are common; total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 6 to 14 months for successful papers.
Past 16 weeks is the right moment for a polite inquiry. Past 20 weeks suggests a reviewer dropped out and the Associate Editor needs a replacement. Silence in the first 10 weeks is normal at IEEE TPAMI given the 3-reviewer model recruitment difficulty.
Sources
Best next step
Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next sensible move.
For IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, the better next step is guidance on timing, follow-up, and what to do while the manuscript is still in the system. Save the Free Readiness Scan for the next paper you have not submitted yet.
Guidance first. Use the scan for the next manuscript.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Same journal, next question
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next sensible move.
Guidance first. Use the scan for the next manuscript.