PLOS ONE 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and Realistic Timelines

Administrative staff at PLOS confirm that files are complete, formatting is acceptable, and the submission meets basic requirements. This is routine. If there is a problem (missing ethics statement, incomplete author information), the manuscript is returned at this stage.

PLOS ONE uses Academic Editors, not in-house editors, for peer review decisions. Finding the right Academic Editor can take several days. The editor must have expertise in the manuscript's subject area and must be willing to handle the paper.

If this stage takes more than a week, it usually means the first choice editor declined and PLOS is inviting alternatives. This is normal for a high-volume journal and does not reflect on the quality of the paper.

The Academic Editor has accepted the manuscript. They read the paper and make an initial assessment: send for review, request revisions before review, or decline.

At PLOS ONE, most papers that pass the editor's initial read go to review. The editor is checking for basic soundness and scope fit, not significance or novelty. Papers declined at this stage usually have visible methodological problems or fall outside PLOS ONE's scope.

The Academic Editor selects and invites reviewers. PLOS ONE typically sends papers to 2 reviewers, sometimes 3. Finding reviewers can take time because many invitations are declined before someone accepts.

The status may show "Reviewer(s) Invited" for an extended period if multiple invitations are needed. This is the most common reason for delays in the PLOS ONE process.

Reviewers have accepted and are actively evaluating the manuscript. PLOS ONE asks reviewers to submit reports within 10 to 14 days, but actual turnaround varies. Some reviewers respond quickly; others take 3 to 4 weeks.

Reviewers are evaluating:

• are the methods sound and described in enough detail to reproduce?
• are the conclusions supported by the data?
• are the statistical analyses appropriate?
• is the reporting complete (correct checklist, data availability)?
• is the writing clear enough to follow?

They are NOT evaluating novelty, significance, or impact. That is the defining feature of PLOS ONE's review model.

The Academic Editor has received all reviewer reports and is writing their recommendation. This stage usually takes 3 to 7 days. The editor weighs the reviews and makes a final recommendation, which PLOS editorial staff typically approve.

PLOS ONE's editorial office is responsive to author inquiries. Use the manuscript tracking system to send a message rather than emailing individual editors.

The paper is accepted for publication without further changes. Relatively uncommon on first round but possible for well-prepared manuscripts.

Small changes requested. Typically formatting corrections, minor clarifications, or additional statistical details. Respond within 2 to 4 weeks. The Academic Editor usually handles the revision without returning to reviewers.

Substantive concerns about methodology, analysis, or interpretation. The revised paper will return to the original reviewers. Respond within 30 to 60 days. Address every reviewer point explicitly in a response letter.

The current version is not acceptable, but a substantially revised version could be reconsidered as a new submission. This means starting the process over with a new manuscript number but potentially the same Academic Editor.

The paper does not meet PLOS ONE's standards for scientific soundness. This is less common than at selective journals but happens when methods are fundamentally flawed, data do not support conclusions, or the paper falls outside scope.

The most common cause of long wait times. PLOS ONE relies on volunteer reviewers who have competing priorities. If one reviewer is responsive and the other is not, the process stalls.

Academic Editors handle PLOS ONE manuscripts alongside their own research. Holiday periods, conference seasons, and grant deadlines can all slow editor response times.

Some papers go through 2 to 3 rounds of revision before a final decision. Each round adds 4 to 8 weeks to the total timeline. This is normal for papers with significant methodological concerns.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting PLOS ONE, three failure patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections and major revision requests. We find these across manuscripts we've reviewed through our PLOS ONE submission readiness check, and they reliably predict which papers will struggle with the Editor Assigned desk screen or generate predictable revision requests.

The data availability statement that says "available upon request." PLOS ONE's data availability policy is among the strictest of large-scale journals. The journal's criteria for publication explicitly state that "data available from the corresponding author on request" does not satisfy the policy. We find roughly 30-40% of manuscripts we review have data availability statements using this phrase or linking to data that requires author contact to access. Papers that deposit data in Figshare, Zenodo, Dryad, or a field-specific repository before submission clear the editorial desk consistently; those that do not are returned to authors before review begins.

The discussion that extends well beyond what the data support. PLOS ONE reviewers are specifically evaluating whether conclusions follow from the data, not whether the findings are important. We observe this most frequently in single-center studies and manuscripts with modest sample sizes. The pattern: a study of 50-80 subjects in one institution concluding that findings "have important implications for clinical practice globally." PLOS ONE reviewers consistently ask authors to scope down claims to what the data actually demonstrate. SciRev community data for PLOS ONE shows "conclusions overreach the data" as one of the most commonly cited revision triggers. The fix is stating limitations within the results section, not relegating them to a final discussion paragraph.

The methods section that names procedures without enabling replication. PLOS ONE peer review is explicitly focused on reproducibility for a general scientific readership. We find that manuscripts from research groups where methods are implicitly understood within a specialty fail the general-readership standard. Common gaps we see: reagent concentrations omitted, software package versions not specified, statistical test selection not justified for the data distribution, and animal study parameters (dosage, housing conditions, randomization) described at a level that would not allow independent replication. These are fixable, but they generate predictable revision requests that add 4-8 weeks to the timeline.

PLOS ONE typically assigns 2 reviewers per manuscript, occasionally 3 for interdisciplinary work or when the Academic Editor wants a tiebreaker. The Academic Editor (a volunteer researcher, not PLOS staff) selects reviewers, reads their reports, and makes the final recommendation. Understanding this process explains a lot about why PLOS ONE decisions sometimes feel inconsistent.

The Academic Editor has real authority here. They're not rubber-stamping reviewer recommendations, they can override a reviewer who's being unreasonable or asking for work that's outside the paper's scope. If you get a split decision, your response letter matters enormously. Address the critical reviewer's concerns thoroughly while noting where you agree with the supportive reviewer's assessment. The Academic Editor is reading both reports alongside your response and making a judgment call. PLOS ONE's editorial office generally defers to the Academic Editor's recommendation, intervening only in cases of clear policy violations.

PLOS ONE revision requests look different from those at selective journals, and understanding the difference helps you respond efficiently. Because PLOS ONE reviews for soundness, not novelty, the revision requests focus almost entirely on methods, data, and reporting, not on whether the findings are exciting enough.

The practical difference: PLOS ONE revision requests are usually fixable. You won't get asked to add a new experiment that takes six months or reframe the entire paper for a different audience. You'll get asked to clarify methods, deposit data, tone down over-claims, and complete reporting checklists. Most PLOS ONE revisions can be turned around in 2-4 weeks if you address every point systematically. The response letter should be a numbered point-by-point document, quote each reviewer comment, then state exactly what you changed and where. Academic Editors appreciate efficiency over eloquence.

A PLOS ONE submission readiness check can flag the exact issues PLOS ONE reviewers are most likely to raise before you submit.

Last verified: April 2026 against Clarivate JCR 2024, journal author guidelines.