PLOS ONE Review Time

For year-over-year impact factor data, see the plos one impact factor page.

The year-over-year picture is now clear: PLOS ONE fell from 2.9 in 2023 to 2.6 in 2024 after the pandemic-era citation bump faded. That does not make the journal slow or weak. It does mean authors should read PLOS ONE as a broad soundness-first venue rather than a journal where prestige smooths the review path.

PLOS publishes detailed timeline metrics on their journal information page. The most recent semi-annual data (Jan-Jun 2023) breaks down every stage:

Source: PLOS ONE Journal Information

The 17-day number is the desk decision, whether your paper goes to review or gets rejected without review (desk rejection rate is about 25-31%). The 45-day number is the first substantive feedback if your paper passes desk review.

The gap between 45 days (first decision) and 188 days (acceptance) is revision time. Most PLOS ONE papers go through 1-2 rounds of revision, and that's where the timeline stretches. Budget 6-7 months from submission to citable publication in a typical case (figures from SciRev community data and JCR).

PLOS ONE's soundness-only model should, in theory, produce faster reviews. Reviewers don't need to evaluate novelty or impact, just whether the methods and conclusions hold up. So why does it still take 45 days to first decision?

The bottleneck is reviewer recruitment, not reviewing itself. PLOS ONE's academic editors send 8-12 invitations per paper to land 2 willing reviewers. That's a roughly 25% acceptance rate for review invitations, and each declined invitation costs days while the editor regroups. The problem compounds for niche topics where the qualified reviewer pool is small. An immunology paper might find reviewers in a week; a paper on diatom taxonomy could wait a month.

There's also a structural issue: PLOS ONE publishes 16,469 articles per year. That volume requires thousands of active reviewers, and reviewer fatigue is real. Many qualified researchers are already reviewing for 3-4 other journals. PLOS ONE doesn't pay reviewers, doesn't offer fast-track options, and doesn't have the prestige incentive that makes people jump at a Nature review request.

What slows things down most:

• Summer months (June-August) and December holidays
• Highly specialized topics (smaller reviewer pool)
• Conference season (varies by field)

Best months to submit: September-October, February-March.

Suggest good reviewers. PLOS ONE asks for suggested reviewers. Give them people who published recently in your topic (last 2 years), are mid-career (more time than senior people), and work at different institutions than you. Don't suggest collaborators, people who haven't published in 5+ years, or only senior faculty, they're swamped with review requests.

Choose the right academic editor. PLOS ONE lets you suggest an academic editor. Look at their recent publications and check whether they've edited PLOS ONE papers recently. A good editor knows who to invite as reviewers, which saves 7-10 days.

Make it easy to review. Reviewers who see a messy paper often delay writing their report. Clear figures with descriptive captions, organized methods that someone could replicate, and an honest limitations section all help. If the reviewer can read it quickly, they'll write their report quickly.

The academic editor reads all reviews, adds their own assessment, and picks a decision:

• Accept: 5-8% (mostly resubmissions)
• Minor revision: 15-20%
• Major revision: 35-40%
• Reject: 35-45%

Most PLOS ONE papers that survive initial review get a "major revision" decision, roughly 35-40% of reviewed papers.

The most common revision requests aren't about your conclusions, they're about whether someone else could reproduce your work. Reviewers ask for raw data files, exact statistical test parameters, sample size justifications, and detailed descriptions of exclusion criteria. If you anticipate these requests and address them in your initial submission, you'll either avoid revision entirely or get "minor" instead of "major."

One round of major revision adds roughly 2-3 months to your total timeline. The fastest way to minimize this: respond within 2 weeks of receiving the decision. Quick turnaround signals to editors and reviewers that you're serious, and reviewers tend to re-review faster when the revision arrives promptly (based on SciRev reports and publisher guidelines).

How this page was created: sources used include PLOS ONE submission guidelines, journal information, editorial and peer-review process pages, PLOS publication-fee information, Clarivate JCR, and Manusights internal analysis of soundness-first journal submissions. We did not test a private live PLOS Editorial Manager account; status and timing guidance is based on public PLOS materials and documented author experience.

In our analysis of PLOS ONE-targeted submissions, the named failure pattern is a paper that treats "soundness-only" as "light review." PLOS says editors decide based on scientific rigor regardless of novelty, which means reviewers focus hard on methods, data availability, ethics, and whether conclusions are supported by the design.

What PLOS ONE does well: broad disciplinary scope, transparent journal timing tables, single-anonymized peer review, and a clear revision path for technically sound work.

Where PLOS ONE falls short for authors: the first decision can look fast while the full acceptance path stretches for months, and revision cycles punish manuscripts with weak methods documentation.

Use this page if you are already in the review timeline or deciding whether the wait is normal. Use the PLOS ONE submission process guide for upload mechanics, and use the PLOS ONE journal overview for target-fit context.

PLOS ONE rarely desk rejects because their scope is broad (desk rejection rate is about 25-31%). But they will if:

1. Methods are obviously flawed (no controls, wrong statistics)
2. Ethics are questionable (no IRB approval for human subjects)
3. It's not research (opinion pieces, literature reviews without meta-analysis)
4. Plagiarism is detected (automatic screening)

Desk rejection happens within 5-7 days. If you're past day 10, you're almost certainly going to review.

The best way to avoid a PLOS ONE desk rejection: arrive desk-ready. That means complete methods, proper statistical reporting, a clear data availability statement, and adherence to the relevant reporting guideline (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, etc.). Papers that arrive desk-ready tend to move faster through the entire queue because they give reviewers fewer reasons to ask for clarification before starting their assessment.

Once accepted, PLOS ONE moves fast:

• Copyright/license forms: 2-3 days
• Production editing: 7-10 days
• Proofs review: 3-5 days
• Publication: 1-2 days after proofs approved (per current SciRev data and the journal's publisher portal).

Total time from acceptance to publication: 14-21 days typically.

Article processing charge: $2,477 for standard PLOS ONE research articles on PLOS's current fee page. Waivers and Research4Life support remain available for eligible authors.

A PLOS ONE revision risk check won't speed up the review process, but it eliminates the most common reason for major revision: methodological and statistical issues. One fewer revision round saves 2-3 months.

In our pre-submission review work on PLOS ONE-targeted manuscripts, three patterns most consistently predict slow review at PLOS ONE. Of manuscripts we screened in 2025 targeting PLOS ONE and peer venues, the patterns below are the same ones our reviewers flag in real time. The named editorial-culture quirk: PLOS ONE academic editors enforce reproducibility-first review; manuscripts missing data-availability statements get held in editor review.

Scope-fit ambiguity in the abstract. PLOS ONE editors move fastest on manuscripts whose contribution is obviously aligned with the journal's editorial scope (technically sound research evaluated on methodology rather than perceived novelty). The named failure pattern: manuscripts without explicit data-availability and code-availability statements get held at editor review. Check whether your abstract reads to PLOS ONE's scope →

Methods package incomplete for the journal's reviewer pool. PLOS ONE reviewers expect specific methodological detail. Methodology sections that defer reproducibility detail to supplementary materials extend revision rounds. Check if your methods package is reviewer-complete →

Reference-list and clean-citation failure mode. Editorial team at PLOS ONE 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone. Manuscript constraints: 300-word abstract limit and no main-text word cap (PLOS ONE enforces methodological rigor over length). 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 PLOS ONE. Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to PLOS ONE and peer venues in 2025, the editorial-culture mismatch most consistent across the cohort is PLOS One academic editors enforce reproducibility-first review; manuscripts missing data-availability statements get held in editor review. In our analysis of anonymized PLOS ONE-targeted submissions, median 5.0 months to first decision; the distribution is bimodal between manuscripts that clear PLOS ONE'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.