Journal of Biological Chemistry 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Before the paper reaches Editorial Board Member review, a JBC associate editor evaluates whether the work fits the biological-chemistry field and warrants JBC's editorial slots. Only a small fraction of submitted papers are rejected right away, in most cases because the Associate Editor views the manuscript to be outside the biological chemistry field and/or better suited to a more specialized audience. JBC's 20 percent desk rejection rate is unusually low for a field-leading journal because JBC's mission is to publish biological-chemistry research broadly.

The JBC editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, supplementary information separate, reporting checklists where applicable (ARRIVE for animal work, MIQE for quantitative PCR), cover letter directed to the associate editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, IRB approvals, and data-availability statement.

The associate editor reads the paper and evaluates biological-chemistry field fit, scientific rigor, and JBC family routing.

In parallel with the primary associate editor's read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the JBC associate editor team where peer associate editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at JBC or at sister ASBMB journals (Molecular and Cellular Proteomics, Journal of Lipid Research). This editorial-team discussion runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 2 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

JBC associate editors typically invite 2 to 3 Editorial Board Members (with 2 EBMs being the most common configuration), and the reviewer recruitment window typically takes 5 to 10 days. JBC's EBMs are experts in the field that receive training in peer review to uphold JBC's high standards of rigor and reproducibility and have made a commitment to review papers over a 5-year term. This EBM commitment model means recruitment is faster than at journals that recruit ad-hoc external reviewers.

Once EBMs agree to review, the typical JBC peer-review cycle lasts 2 to 3 weeks per reviewer. Referees are asked to return their assessment in 14 days for a regular publication and 5 days for an Accelerated Communication. Reviewers are asked to evaluate biological-chemistry rigor, reproducibility, and methodological clarity. Reviewer reports for JBC tend to be focused; 1500 to 3000 word reports are typical given the 14-day reviewer target.

After reports return, the associate editor synthesizes them. The 3 to 6 week first-decision time applies to papers that reach external peer review.

• Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.
• Rejection within 5 to 10 days: Associate editor desk rejection per the ~20 percent figure.
• Still Under Review after 2 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Associate Editor filter and is in active EBM review.
• Still Under Review after 8 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the Editorial Manager portal is appropriate.
• Status changes to "Decision Pending": Reports are in; expect a decision within 1 week.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from JBC authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 4 weeks at Under Review puts you in the normal middle of JBC's 3 to 6 week first-decision distribution. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the associate editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from EBM scheduling (EBMs are working academics with 5-year peer-review commitments who fit JBC review around their own research) rather than slow reviews because the 14-day reviewer target keeps active review fast. If the portal still says Under Review at the 6-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned EBMs asked for an extension and the associate editor granted it. This is normal practice at JBC.

What you should NOT do during the 4-to-6-week window is email the editorial office. JBC associate editors are managing 30+ active papers; an inquiry at 4 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your JBC paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the EBMs and associate editor cited:

Molecular and Cellular Proteomics (MCP) is the natural ASBMB cascade for proteomics-focused biological-chemistry papers. ASBMB supports manuscript-transfer with reviewer reports preserved.

Journal of Lipid Research (JLR) is the ASBMB cascade for lipid-biochemistry papers.

Biochemistry (ACS) is the external ACS cascade for biological-chemistry papers. ACS uses ACS Paragon Plus at acsparagonplus.acs.org; editorial contact via acs.bichaw@acs.org.

Biochemical Journal (Portland Press) is the external Biochemical Society cascade for biological-chemistry papers.

PLOS ONE is the broader PLOS open-access cascade for technically-sound biological-chemistry papers. PLOS uses Editorial Manager at editorialmanager.com/pone; editorial contact plosone@plos.org.

Scientific Reports is the Nature Portfolio open-access cascade for technically-sound biological-chemistry papers.

ASBMB asks EBMs at JBC to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

In our pre-submission work with JBC-targeted manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent EBM concerns and the most common reasons papers miss the editorial bar or fail the desk screen.

Specialized-audience framing flagged at Associate Editor screen. When the introduction frames the work too narrowly for a specialized audience (e.g., focused only on one organism, one disease, or one enzyme without broader biochemistry implications), Associate Editor desk return with a "better suited to a more specialized audience" note is the most common rejection reason. The strongest manuscripts frame the introduction around broader biological-chemistry principles.

Methods documentation gaps surface as EBM concerns. When methods documentation is thin (especially for protein purification, enzyme kinetics, structural biology, or single-molecule biochemistry), EBMs consistently request expanded methods sections. The 14-day reviewer target means EBMs flag clarity issues quickly. The strongest revisions add detailed methods documentation with reagent catalog numbers.

Reproducibility framing flagged by EBMs. When raw data, original images, or code are not deposited in public repositories, EBMs consistently flag reproducibility concerns per JBC's high standards. The strongest manuscripts deposit raw data alongside submission.

This page was created from ASBMB's public peer review documentation at jbcresources.asbmb.org/peer-review-at-jbc, JBC Elsevier author guide (3 to 6 week first decision, ~20 percent desk rejection, 14-day reviewer target for regular publications, 5-day target for Accelerated Communications, EBM training and 5-year commitment model, typically 2 EBMs per paper), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with JBC-targeted manuscripts.

For the biological-chemistry landscape beyond JBC, see Molecular and Cellular Proteomics (ASBMB proteomics specialty), Journal of Lipid Research (ASBMB lipid specialty), Biochemistry (ACS biochemistry), Biochemical Journal (Biochemical Society), and broader open-access alternatives (PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is broad biological-chemistry (JBC), proteomics (MCP), lipid biochemistry (JLR), ACS biochemistry (Biochemistry), Biochemical Society biochemistry (Biochemical Journal), or open-access (PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports).

Reviewers at JBC typically draw from 2 trained Editorial Board Members with 5-year peer-review commitments. The EBM model means reviewer expertise is consistent across submissions, and preparing a response template that addresses both rigor and methodological-clarity perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the JBC biological-chemistry-rigor bar before submission, our JBC pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and methods-documentation weaknesses most likely to surface in EBM reports.