International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review Time

The ten-day major revision window is the one stage you control. A tight point-by-point letter keeps the second review short; see our International Journal of Molecular Sciences response to reviewers template.

For year-over-year citation metrics data, see the IJMS citation metrics page.

The current JIF moved back up from the 2024 value, while MDPI's current statistics show a 10.0 CiteScore and a median first decision of about 17.5 days (first half of 2026). 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: MDPI publishes no separate desk-decision time. The technical pre-check and the Academic Editor's editorial pre-check assess scope, scientific soundness, and whether the paper meets minimum standards. Papers with serious methodological problems, out-of-scope topics, or inadequate English can be rejected at this stage.

First decision for peer-reviewed papers: approximately 17.5 days from submission at the median, according to MDPI (first half of 2026). What MDPI publishes about the stages:

• Reviewers who accept an invitation are generally given 7 to 10 days to submit their report (extensions are common)

• At least two review reports are collected before the Academic Editor makes the first decision

Papers that run longer: If a reviewer needs more time or a replacement reviewer must be found, the first decision takes longer than the median. MDPI states that extensions are common and can be granted on request.

Post-acceptance to online publication: MDPI reports 2.9 days at the median (first half of 2026). Accepted manuscripts go through professional copy-editing, English editing, proofreading by the authors, final corrections, pagination, and publication.

The main IJMS risk is not that the journal is slow by default. It is that the first decision can arrive before a team has prepared the controls, statistics, and data files needed for a credible revision. A fast first decision is useful only if the authors can answer it without rebuilding the paper from scratch.

For experimental molecular-biology papers, the highest-yield preparation is a control inventory. Before submission, list every assay that depends on normalization, loading control, vehicle control, biological replicate count, or antibody validation. Then check whether those controls are already visible in the main figures or supplementary files. IJMS reviewers often move quickly, but they still ask ordinary reproducibility questions, and missing controls turn a nominally fast process into a second experimental cycle.

For computational or mixed experimental-computational papers, the review-time risk is different. IJMS's aims and scope welcome computational results, but a molecular prediction that is not supported by enough experimental validation to make the claim testable can slow review. A docking-only or pathway-enrichment-only manuscript can move slowly because the editor needs a reviewer willing to evaluate both the computation and the biological interpretation. If timing matters, make the validation logic explicit in the abstract and cover letter rather than expecting reviewers to infer it from the results section.

For special-issue submissions, speed depends on guest-editor availability as much as on MDPI's central process. Before choosing a special issue, check whether the guest editor has recent publications in the exact area and whether the special issue scope matches the manuscript rather than just its keywords. A topic match with weak editorial ownership can add days or weeks because reviewer selection becomes less focused.

The practical planning rule is simple: treat MDPI's median of about 17.5 days as the best-case first-decision window for a complete paper, not as permission to submit an incomplete one. If the paper needs one more control, one more statistical pass, or a cleaner data-availability statement, do it before submission. IJMS can reward readiness with speed, but it does not make an underprepared paper ready.

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

Short reviewer deadlines. MDPI says reviewers who accept an invitation are generally given 7 to 10 days, compared to 14-21 days at most traditional journals. This compresses the peer review phase. Extensions are common and can be granted on request, which adds time.

Academic editors make the decisions. IJMS uses external Academic Editors (Editorial Board members) who assess papers in their area. The Editorial Office invites the reviewers the Academic Editor approves, and the Academic Editor makes the editorial decisions.

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, allow authors to choose Open Peer Review, in which review reports and author responses are published alongside the article (reviewers are encouraged to sign their reports, and the default is anonymous). This doesn't affect timing directly, but it's part of the editorial model that shapes how reviewers engage.

IJMS uses MDPI's SuSy submission system. MDPI does not publish a glossary of SuSy status labels, so the stages below follow its editorial-process description rather than screen wording:

Technical and ethics pre-check, The Editorial Office checks adherence to the Instructions for Authors and MDPI's ethics policies.

Editorial pre-check, An Academic Editor assesses scope fit and scientific soundness and validates the reviewers.

Peer review, At least two review reports are collected.

First editorial decision, Accept in current form, minor revision, reconsider after major revision, reject and decline resubmission, reject and encourage resubmission, or ask for additional reviewers.

Revision, Generally five days for minor revision and ten days for major revision.

Final decision and production, Accepted manuscripts go to copy-editing, English editing, proofreading and publication.

If your paper has been under review for much longer than MDPI's reported median first-decision time (about 17.5 days), 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 7 to 10 day reviewer 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.

Major revision turnaround. If you receive a major revision, authors are generally given ten days to respond (extensions are granted on request), which is tighter than traditional journals. After resubmission, reviewers of a revised manuscript are asked to report within three days, and up to two rounds of major revision are usually allowed.

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 median of about 17.5 days to first decision 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. 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: an abstract of about 200 words maximum; IJMS has no restriction on the maximum length of manuscripts.

We reviewed each of these constraints against current journal author guidelines (accessed 2026-10-09); evidence basis for the patterns above includes both publicly documented author-guidelines and Manusights pre-submission review patterns.

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 about 17.5 days and acceptance-to-publication is 2.9 days (first half of 2026). In our pre-submission review work, 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.

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 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.