PLOS ONE Review Time

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.

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.

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

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

Article processing charge: $2,290 (as of 2026). Waivers available for authors in low-income countries.

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.

Submit if:

• Your research is methodologically sound and you value PLOS ONE's broad scope with a 31% acceptance rate
• You need an indexed open-access venue where technical soundness matters more than perceived novelty or impact
• Your methods section is complete with proper statistical reporting, a data availability statement, and relevant reporting guidelines followed
• A 35-45 day median to first decision fits your timeline, and you can cover the $2,290 APC

Think twice if:

• Your paper has obvious methods flaws, missing controls, or questionable ethics documentation that would trigger a rare desk rejection
• You are submitting during June-August or December when reviewer recruitment slows significantly
• The work is a niche topic where the reviewer pool is small, which could push your wait to 90+ days
• You are using PLOS ONE as a safety option after multiple rejections without first addressing the methodological concerns those reviewers raised