International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review Time

For year-over-year citation metrics data, see the international journal of molecular sciences citation metrics page.

The 2024 JIF fell from 5.1 in 2023 to 4.9 in 2024, while MDPI's current statistics still show a 9.0 CiteScore and a median first decision of 17.8 days. That is the right way to read IJMS now: still fast, still visible, but best understood as a scale journal where speed and indexing matter more than scarcity.

Desk rejection decision: 1-2 weeks from submission. IJMS editors assess scope, basic methodology quality, and whether the paper meets minimum standards. Papers with serious methodological problems, out-of-scope topics, or inadequate English are desk rejected quickly.

First decision for peer-reviewed papers: 3-5 weeks from submission. Here's how it breaks down:

• Desk review: 1-2 weeks

• Reviewer recruitment: 3-5 days (MDPI targets fast recruitment)

• Active peer review: 10-15 days (MDPI asks reviewers to complete in 10 days)

• Editorial decision: 2-5 days (per SciRev community data and JCR latest release).

Papers that run longer: If a reviewer needs more time or a replacement reviewer must be found, first decisions can reach 6-8 weeks. That's still fast by most journal standards.

Post-acceptance to online publication: 1-2 weeks. MDPI has automated much of its production process. Most accepted papers receive a PDF proof within a week and appear online within 2 weeks of acceptance (based on SciRev reports and publisher guidelines).

MDPI runs a high-volume, fast-turnaround editorial operation. A few structural features that directly affect your timeline:

Short reviewer deadlines. MDPI asks reviewers to complete reviews in 10 days, compared to 14-21 days at most traditional journals. This compresses the peer review phase. Some reviewers need extensions, which adds time, but the initial deadline is aggressive and most reviewers honor it (per current SciRev data and the journal's publisher portal).

Academic editors, not in-house staff. IJMS uses external academic editors (Editorial Board members) who manage the peer review process for papers in their area. Assignment happens quickly, usually within 2-4 days. The editor invites reviewers and makes the final recommendation.

High submission volume. IJMS receives a very large number of submissions. Desk review is fast partly because editors are processing many papers and cannot spend extended time on papers with obvious problems.

Transparency in the process. MDPI journals, including IJMS, have the option of open review (reviewer names visible after acceptance). This doesn't affect timing directly, but it's part of the editorial model that shapes how reviewers engage.

IJMS uses MDPI's submission system. The key statuses:

Submitted, Received and undergoing initial checks (format, completeness, English quality).

Pending Review or Under Review, Assigned to an editor; desk review is happening or paper is with reviewers.

Reviewer Invited, Editor is actively recruiting reviewers.

Under Review (Peer Review), Reviewers have accepted the invitation and are actively reviewing.

Revisions Required / Major Revision / Minor Revision, First decision delivered. You have time to respond.

Accepted, Final acceptance. Production begins.

If your paper has been Under Review for more than 5 weeks, a status inquiry to the MDPI editorial team is appropriate.

Reviewer recruitment in niche subdisciplines. IJMS covers a wide range of molecular sciences topics. For highly specialized research, specific receptor classes, unusual model organisms, narrow computational approaches, finding qualified reviewers takes longer. The 10-day deadline is useful only once reviewers are on board.

Reviewer dropouts. Even with short deadlines, reviewers sometimes don't complete their reports and a replacement must be found. Each dropout adds 1-2 weeks.

Major revision turnaround. If you receive a major revision, you typically have 2-4 weeks to respond (MDPI timelines are tighter than traditional journals on revisions). After resubmission, the paper goes back to reviewers for 7-10 days. The whole revision cycle at IJMS can be complete in 4-6 weeks (figures from SciRev community data and JCR).

IJMS reviewers assess scientific soundness rather than top-tier novelty. Common revision requests:

Additional statistical analysis. Sample size reporting, appropriate statistical tests, and significance thresholds. Papers with limited statistical reporting almost always receive this comment.

Improved methods description. IJMS papers are expected to have methods sufficient for replication. Vague reagent descriptions, missing antibody catalog numbers, or incomplete protocol details trigger revision requests.

Additional controls. Negative controls, loading controls on blots, vehicle-treated controls in cell or animal experiments. These are standard requests.

Discussion of limitations. IJMS reviewers often ask authors to add a limitations section if one is absent or cursory.

English language improvement. For papers where English quality is substandard, IJMS frequently requests revision. Having a native speaker or professional proofreader review the manuscript before submission prevents this.

IJMS works well for:

Technically solid molecular biology without top-tier novelty. Papers that are methodologically rigorous but represent an incremental advance are competitive here. The journal doesn't require the broad significance claims needed at PNAS or Nature Communications.

Speed as a primary requirement. A 3-5 week turnaround is genuinely fast. If you need a decision quickly, IJMS delivers.

Open access compliance. IJMS is fully open access. For authors whose funders require OA publication, it's a straightforward option. The APC is substantial (check the current MDPI pricing, which changes periodically), but many institutions have agreements with MDPI.

Broad molecular sciences scope. IJMS covers genetics, biochemistry, cell biology, structural biology, and computational molecular science. Papers that span multiple areas fit the journal's breadth.

For IJMS-targeted manuscripts, three patterns most consistently predict slow review at International Journal of Molecular Sciences. Of manuscripts we screened in 2025 targeting IJMS and peer venues, the patterns below are the same ones our reviewers flag in real time. The named editorial-culture quirk: IJMS reviewers consistently flag underpowered experiments (n<3) and missing statistical-test specification; rapid review-time depends on methodology completeness.

Scope-fit ambiguity in the abstract. IJMS editors move fastest on manuscripts whose contribution is obviously aligned with the journal's editorial scope (molecular biology research with reproducible methodology and adequate statistical power). The named failure pattern: underpowered experiments (n<3) without justification get extended methodology revision. Check whether your abstract reads to IJMS's scope →

Methods package incomplete for the journal's reviewer pool. IJMS reviewers expect specific methodological detail. Missing statistical-test specification extends reviewer assignment. Check if your methods package is reviewer-complete →

Reference-list and clean-citation failure mode. Editorial team at International Journal of Molecular Sciences 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: MDPI SuSy submission system. Manuscript constraints: 200-word abstract limit and 8,000-word main-text cap (IJMS 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 International Journal of Molecular Sciences. Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to IJMS and peer venues in 2025, the editorial-culture mismatch most consistent across the cohort is IJMS reviewers consistently flag underpowered experiments (n<3) and missing statistical-test specification; rapid review-time depends on methodology completeness.

In our analysis of anonymized IJMS-targeted submissions, the documented review timeline shows a bimodal distribution between manuscripts that clear IJMS'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.

For manuscripts targeting International Journal of Molecular Sciences, three patterns most often determine whether the fast review model stays fast or starts to drag.

A broad molecular paper with no clear reason to be broad. Per the official IJMS scope, the journal covers molecular and cell biology, molecular medicine, biophysics, and related chemistry. We see many papers that technically fit but do not yet explain why they should sit in a broad molecular journal instead of a more specific venue. Those are the papers most likely to get extra reviewer pushback on framing.

Speed-first submissions with unfinished evidence packages. Per current MDPI journal statistics, the median first decision is 17.8 days and acceptance-to-publication is 2.6 days. In Manusights reviews, authors sometimes treat that speed as permission to submit early. That usually backfires: the journal moves fast, but reviewers still notice weak controls, incomplete validation, or a discussion that overclaims what the data establish (per SciRev community data and JCR latest release).

Special-issue logic replacing journal-fit logic. Editors specifically screen whether the paper has a clean IJMS rationale rather than just a convenient special-issue slot. In our review of IJMS submissions, that mismatch is one of the most common reasons a nominally on-scope paper still loses momentum.

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.

A IJMS desk-rejection risk check scores fit against the journal's editorial bar.

Review timelines vary significantly by paper. Desk rejections are fast (1-3 weeks) and skew median decision times downward. Papers entering full review face reviewer availability, holiday periods, and revision cycles that extend well beyond published medians. A IJMS submission readiness check identifies desk-screen outcome before you enter the timeline.

A good IJMS revision plan starts before the decision arrives. Keep editable figure files, raw statistical outputs, supplementary tables, ethics documentation, and response-letter headings in one place. If reviewers ask for new analysis, the team should know who owns it and how quickly it can be done. If reviewers challenge scope or novelty, prepare a concise framing revision rather than adding unsupported claims. That preparation turns a fast review cycle into an advantage instead of a source of rushed mistakes.

For teams with deadlines, define the decision point in advance. Decide when to follow up, when to prepare a transfer, and who will handle revision tasks. That keeps the process calm when the editor responds.