PLOS ONE 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, an in-house handling editor performs the initial technical check and an Academic Editor evaluates the manuscript against the 7 publication criteria. About 20 to 31 percent of submissions are rejected at this stage without external review.

A rejection most often means the editor concluded that the work has technical issues (incomplete data, missing methods, ethical concerns) or would fit better at a sister PLOS journal (PLOS Biology for high-impact biology, PLOS Medicine for general-medicine, PLOS Global Public Health for global health, PLOS Digital Health for digital health, PLOS Computational Biology for computational biology).

The PLOS ONE in-house staff perform the initial technical check: manuscript with figures embedded, supplementary information separate, reporting checklists where applicable (ARRIVE for animal work, CONSORT for clinical trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews), cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, IRB approvals, and data-availability statement (PLOS requires public deposition of data).

The in-house handling editor reviews the technical check results and selects an appropriate Academic Editor from the Editorial Board based on subject area expertise.

In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the PLOS in-house editorial team where peer handling editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at PLOS ONE or at sister PLOS journals. This editorial consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 2 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Papers that pass initial technical check and quality control are placed with a member of the Editorial Board (Academic Editor). The Academic Editor identifies and invites 2 to 3 external reviewers with topic-matched expertise.

PLOS ONE Academic Editors typically invite 2 to 3 external reviewers, with reviewer recruitment typically taking 7 to 14 days. The recruitment window can take longer because reviewers willing to evaluate against the 7 publication criteria (rather than novelty-based criteria) are scarcer than reviewers for selective journals.

Once reviewers agree to review, the typical PLOS ONE peer-review cycle lasts 2 to 4 weeks per reviewer. The ~29-day median first-decision time is faster than traditional subscription journals which average 75 to 90 days. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript against the 7 publication criteria, paying particular attention to whether the conclusions are supported by the data provided.

After reports return, the Academic Editor synthesizes them. The Academic Editor decides whether to accept the work as is, request minor or major revisions, or reject the paper.

• Rejection within 1 to 3 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.

• Rejection within 3 to 14 days: In-house handling editor or Academic Editor desk rejection per the 20 to 31 percent figure.

• Still Under Review after 2 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the in-house technical check and Academic Editor screen.

• 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 PLOS ONE authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 4 weeks at Under Review puts you right at PLOS ONE's ~29-day median first-decision time. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the Academic Editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for the criteria-based review model rather than slow reviews.

If the portal still says Under Review at the 6-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the Academic Editor granted it. This is normal practice at PLOS ONE.

What you should NOT do during the 4-to-6-week window is email the editorial office. PLOS ONE Academic Editors are working academics managing 20+ active papers per year around their own research; an inquiry at 4 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your PLOS ONE paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and Academic Editor cited:

Scientific Reports is the natural external Nature Portfolio open-access cascade for technically-sound multidisciplinary papers. Scientific Reports uses the Nature submission portal at Nature manuscript-tracking system; editorial contact srep@nature.com.

PLOS Global Public Health is the PLOS cascade for global-health papers.

PLOS Digital Health is the PLOS cascade for digital-health and AI-clinical-research papers.

PLOS Computational Biology is the PLOS cascade for computational biology papers.

PLOS Genetics is the PLOS cascade for genetics-focused papers.

BMC Research Notes is the BMC short-format cascade. BMC uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact bmcresnotes@biomedcentral.com.

Heliyon is the external Elsevier multidisciplinary cascade for technically-sound papers. Heliyon uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact heliyon@elsevier.com.

PLOS asks reviewers at PLOS ONE to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

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

Data-availability gaps flagged at initial technical check. When raw data is not deposited in public repositories, initial technical check return is common. The strongest manuscripts deposit raw data alongside submission and make the data-availability statement match the figure, table, supplement, software, and protocol package reviewers will inspect.

Check whether your PLOS ONE data package is complete →

Conclusions exceeding data support flagged by Academic Editor. When conclusions exceed what the data clearly support, especially causal claims from observational data or generalization claims from limited samples, Academic Editors consistently flag concerns per the 7 publication criteria. The strongest manuscripts make conservative conclusions that trace directly from the results tables, statistical model, limitations paragraph, and data-availability statement.

Check whether your conclusions stay inside the data →

Reporting checklist gaps surface as reviewer requests. When ARRIVE, CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, or field-specific reporting checklists are incomplete, reviewers consistently request expanded reporting sections. The strongest manuscripts complete the relevant checklist before submission and make each checklist item traceable to the methods, results, supplement, and data repository.

Check your PLOS ONE reporting-checklist traceability →

We have reviewed 50+ manuscripts targeting PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports, Heliyon, BMC Research Notes, PLOS Biology, and PLOS Medicine. This guide tells you what PLOS ONE editors look for in the status window, while the review tells you whether your paper passes the same data-availability, methods, ethics, reporting-checklist, and conclusion-support checks before the Academic Editor or external reviewers see it. Full Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on your manuscript.

In our pre-submission review work across multidisciplinary open-access and scientific-soundness journals, PLOS ONE-bound drafts most often failed when the study was publishable in principle but the evidence package was not transparent enough for criteria-based review. Manusights internal analysis identifies this as a recurring failure pattern because PLOS ONE does not require novelty, but it does require data, methods, ethics, and conclusions to line up cleanly.

Source limitation: official guidance explains PLOS ONE's criteria and manuscript statuses, but it cannot diagnose whether your specific data repository, reporting checklist, and conclusion language are ready for Academic Editor review.

This page was created from PLOS's public PLOS ONE editorial and peer review process documentation at Journals editorial team page, PLOS journal information documentation (initial technical check + Editorial Board Academic Editor model, ~29-day median first decision time, 20 to 31 percent desk rejection rate, 2 to 3 reviewer criteria-based review, 7 publication criteria with scientific rigor regardless of novelty), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with PLOS ONE-targeted manuscripts.

For the open-access multidisciplinary landscape beyond PLOS ONE, see Scientific Reports (Nature Portfolio open-access), International Journal of Molecular Sciences (MDPI molecular sciences), Heliyon (Elsevier multidisciplinary), F1000Research (open-access post-publication review), and PLOS specialty journals (PLOS Biology, PLOS Medicine, PLOS Computational Biology, PLOS Genetics, PLOS Global Public Health, PLOS Digital Health).

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is multidisciplinary scientific rigor (PLOS ONE), Nature Portfolio open-access (Scientific Reports), MDPI molecular sciences (IJMS), Elsevier multidisciplinary (Heliyon), open-access post-publication (F1000Research), or specialty PLOS scope (PLOS Biology, Medicine, Computational Biology, Genetics, Global Public Health, Digital Health).

Reviewers at PLOS ONE typically draw from 2 to 3 subspecialty experts under a criteria-based review model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses the 7 publication criteria explicitly accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the PLOS ONE scientific-rigor-plus-7-criteria bar before submission, our PLOS ONE pre-submission diagnostic flags the data-availability and conclusions-supported weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.