Science Advances Under Evaluation: What It Means and How Long It Takes

Decision cue: If you need a yes/no submission call today, compare your draft with 3 recent accepted papers from this journal and only submit when scope, methods depth, and claim strength line up.

Related: How to choose a journal • How to avoid desk rejection • Pre-submission checklist

If your Science Advances submission shows Under Evaluation, you've cleared initial quality checks and your manuscript is in active editorial hands. Here's what that status actually means, how long each phase typically runs, and when it makes sense to reach out.

What Under Evaluation actually means

Science Advances uses an academic editor model. Each submission gets assigned to a handling editor -- a faculty researcher in a relevant field -- rather than an in-house editorial staffer. Under Evaluation appears once that assignment happens.

The tricky part: the status doesn't tell you which phase you're in. It can reflect two different things:

Desk review. The handling editor is reading your manuscript to decide whether it's worth sending to external reviewers. They're looking for broad AAAS readership appeal, genuine novelty, and whether the scope fits Science Advances specifically (rather than a narrower sub-field journal). This phase typically runs 3-6 weeks from submission.

External peer review. If the editor decided not to desk reject, reviewers have been identified and are actively reading your manuscript. This phase adds another 4-8 weeks on top of the desk stage, giving a total of roughly 6-10 weeks from submission to first decision.

There's no status change between these two phases from the author's side. The only reliable signal is time: if you're at week 6 or 7 and still Under Evaluation, you've almost certainly passed desk review and are with external reviewers.

One more thing worth knowing: Science Advances uses a board of roughly 250 academic editors drawn from active faculty across STEM disciplines. Editor assignment isn't instantaneous -- there's a matching step where an appropriate editor needs to agree to handle the submission. If your paper is in a niche interdisciplinary area, this matching step alone can add a week or two before the clock on actual desk review even starts. Authors sometimes see their paper sit at Under Evaluation for 2-3 weeks without any real assessment happening yet. That's normal and doesn't signal anything about the likely outcome.

The typical status progression

Most Science Advances authors see this sequence:

Submitted / Received -- Your manuscript is in the system and going through technical checks: formatting, completeness, author conflict declarations. This usually resolves within a few days.

Under Evaluation -- Assigned to a handling editor. This is where most of the waiting happens. It covers both desk review and, if you pass, external peer review.

Decision in Process -- The editor has the reviewer comments and is writing the formal recommendation letter. Short phase, usually 1-2 weeks.

Decision sent -- You receive the email. Outcomes: accept as-is (rare at any journal), minor revision, major revision, or reject.

Some authors also see intermediate statuses like Reviewers Assigned or Reviews Complete depending on the state of the editorial system at that moment. Not all authors see these. They don't change the overall timeline.

How long should you expect to wait?

Timeline benchmarks from consistent author reports over several years:

• Desk rejection: 3-6 weeks from submission. Science Advances is slower on desk decisions than journals with in-house editorial staff (Nature Communications desk rejects in 1-2 weeks). Faculty editors fit manuscript reading around their own lab schedules.
• Time to first decision (if peer reviewed): 30-50 days on average. Fast cases close in around 30 days. Papers where a reviewer dropped out and needed replacement can run to 60 or even 70 days.
• Under Evaluation for more than 10 weeks: On the slow end, but it happens. Reviewer availability in niche fields is genuinely limited. A status inquiry is appropriate at this point.

For context, here's how Science Advances compares to similar journals:

Can you tell if you've passed desk review?

Not definitively, but there are signals. Science Advances doesn't send a separate "passed desk review" notification -- the status just stays Under Evaluation throughout.

Signs you're probably with external reviewers:

• You're past week 5-6 with no desk rejection
• The status changed to Under Evaluation quickly (within the first week), suggesting fast editor assignment
• You received a confirmation that the editor has been assigned (not all authors do)

Signs you might still be in desk review:

• You're in weeks 2-4 with no status change
• Your paper is in a field where Science Advances editorial board coverage is thin (some sub-disciplines of engineering or social sciences)
• You received an automated acknowledgment but no editor assignment confirmation

None of these are guarantees either way. Some papers get desk rejected at week 8; some are with reviewers by week 3. The status system just isn't granular enough to tell.

When and how to follow up

Follow up after 8-10 weeks at Under Evaluation with no update. Before that, editors generally won't have anything useful to tell you.

When you do reach out, email advances@aaas.org with one or two sentences:

"I'm writing to ask for a status update on manuscript [ID]. The submission has been at Under Evaluation for approximately 10 weeks and I wanted to check whether there are any delays we should be aware of."

That's the whole email. No pressure, no complaints, no CC to other editors. Most editorial offices respond within a few days and will tell you whether reviewers have been identified, whether there's a delay with a specific reviewer, or what the expected timeline is.

Don't follow up more than once every 2-3 weeks. Repeated inquiries don't speed up the process and occasionally create friction with the handling editor.

What not to do while waiting

A few common mistakes that don't help and occasionally hurt:

Don't withdraw and resubmit elsewhere without a clear reason. If you're at week 7 and there's no sign of trouble, you're probably with reviewers. Withdrawing resets the clock somewhere else and burns a potential acceptance.

Don't contact the editor directly if you can avoid it. The editorial office email is the right channel. Editors aren't always easy to identify, and direct outreach can feel aggressive.

Don't read too much into the status not changing. Under Evaluation stays the same whether your paper is sitting with an editor on day 3 or with two reviewers on day 45. The static status doesn't mean nothing is happening.

What comes after Under Evaluation

Once the status moves to Decision in Process, you're close. That phase runs 1-2 weeks.

The outcomes, roughly in order of frequency for papers that make it to external peer review:

Major revision -- The most common outcome. Reviewers have specific requests: additional experiments, reanalysis, revised framing, stronger controls. You'll get 60-90 days to respond, sometimes longer on request. This isn't a rejection -- most major revisions at Science Advances result in acceptance if the authors address the reviewer concerns thoroughly.

Minor revision -- Reviewers have limited requests that don't require new experiments. 30-day turnaround is typical. These almost always result in acceptance.

Reject after review -- Reviewers raised concerns the editor doesn't think can be addressed in a reasonable revision. Less common than major revision at academic-editor journals, but it happens -- particularly when novelty or significance concerns dominate the review.

Accept as-is -- Rare at any journal. If it happens, reviewers had only minor comments the editor chose not to require you to incorporate.

Desk rejection -- Comes earlier (weeks 3-6 rather than 6-10). If you receive a rejection at the 3-4 week mark, it was almost certainly a desk decision rather than a reviewer-based one.

If you get a major revision

A major revision request is a good sign -- it means reviewers engaged seriously with the work and the editor sees a path to publication. The response document matters as much as the revised manuscript.

Address every reviewer comment specifically. Where you've done additional experiments, show the new data prominently and explain why it addresses the concern. Where you disagree with a reviewer comment, explain your reasoning clearly rather than ignoring it. Structure the letter so the editor can follow it without re-reading the reviews.

A few things that specifically matter at Science Advances revisions: the interdisciplinary readership argument. If the original desk review was close, the revised manuscript often needs to strengthen the case for why this work matters beyond a single sub-field. Reviewers sometimes flag this directly ("the significance for a broad Science Advances readership isn't clear") -- address it head-on in the cover letter, not just in the text. Second, any new experiments need to be clearly labeled as new in the revision letter. Editors reading 50+ revision letters a week appreciate a clean summary of what changed and where.

Sources and further reading

Review timeline data sourced from Science Advances author-reported submission experiences aggregated across academic forums and publisher transparency reports. Acceptance rate data from AAAS annual reporting. For current submission requirements and author guidelines, see the Science Advances submission portal.

• Science Advances acceptance rate and desk rejection data
• Science Advances submission process: full timeline
• Science Advances impact factor 2026
• Is Science Advances a good journal?
• Science Advances journal guide

The Bottom Line

Under evaluation is a good sign , it means the paper cleared the initial desk screen and is being handled by an editor. The typical wait from 'under evaluation' to first decision is 10-20 days. If you're past 30 days, a polite status inquiry is appropriate.

See also

• How to avoid desk rejection

• Pre-submission checklist