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

Most high-profile journals give authors phase-specific status updates. Science Advances does not.

At Nature Communications, you'd see more phase-specific status movement. At Science Advances, the status can remain broad for much longer. The practical consequence is that authors cannot read the portal wording the same way they would at some other publishers.

Science Advances uses deputy editors and associate editors who are active researchers, not full-time editorial staff. A deputy editor handles 50--100 papers per month alongside their own research. That changes the timeline in predictable ways:

• Triage is slower than at journals with in-house editors
• Reviewer recruitment can stall when the topic is interdisciplinary
• One slow reviewer can hold up the entire decision

During "Under Evaluation," the editor is deciding whether the paper has broad enough interest for the journal, whether the claims clear the bar, and which reviewers could credibly assess the work. None of this is reflected in the status label.

Under Evaluation does not tell you:

• whether the paper has definitely passed desk review
• whether reviewers have already accepted the invitation
• whether the editor is enthusiastic or skeptical
• whether the file is close to a decision

That is why portal superstition is usually a waste of energy. The useful signal is still elapsed time plus any direct email from the journal.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Science Advances, three status-reading mistakes come up repeatedly once authors are sitting in the queue.

Reading day 10 like a verdict. Science Advances uses one broad label for multiple phases, so a paper that has been sitting for 7-10 days has not told you anything meaningful yet. Teams often start mentally redirecting the paper too early.

Treating week 5 as proof of external review. Surviving the early editorial window is directionally positive, but it is still not the same thing as confirmed referee review. Science Advances can leave papers in the same status through editor assessment, reviewer recruitment, and active review.

Sending the wrong kind of follow-up. The teams that get useful replies send one short factual email with manuscript ID and submission date. The teams that get no value out of the exchange usually send a long emotional note that tries to argue the paper's importance again instead of asking for a status update.

The practical takeaway is simple: use the portal for timing, not for meaning. The moment you start inventing meaning from the label itself, you are past the point where the status is helping you.

For interdisciplinary papers (which Science Advances publishes a lot of) the reviewer-matching step can be particularly slow. The editor may need reviewers from two or three different fields, and finding qualified people who are available takes time. This is one reason Science Advances desk decisions run slower than at discipline-specific journals where the reviewer pool is more predictable.

If I were advising a lab in real time, my guidance would be simple:

• on day 10, ignore the portal
• on day 28, start preparing for either outcome but still do not overread the label
• on day 45, treat the survival as mildly positive but not decisive
• on day 70, send one factual inquiry and make sure fallback plans are ready

That is more useful than trying to reverse-engineer hidden meaning from a status string that Science Advances does not use in a phase-specific way.

Science Advances is the only AAAS journal that uses "Under Evaluation" as a catch-all. At Science itself, you'd see distinct statuses for desk review vs. peer review.

The same status can mean "desk rejected in 2 days but the editor hasn't clicked the button" or "three reviewers are writing detailed reports." There is no way to tell from the outside.

No. This is the biggest misconception. A paper can sit in "Under Evaluation" for weeks before a desk rejection arrives, one SciRev reviewer reported 56 days to a desk reject, another reported 52 days.

But timing still helps. If you're past 4--5 weeks with no rejection, the odds that your paper is in peer review improve substantially. Most desk rejections arrive earlier.

The honest answer: The status alone proves nothing. Extended time without rejection is a modestly positive signal, but don't celebrate until you see reviewer comments.

One more practical point: surviving past the early editorial window is directionally positive because many of the fastest negative decisions arrive sooner. It is still not proof of a favorable outcome.

Do not follow up in the first few weeks unless you suspect a system error. After a materially longer wait with no communication, one polite email to the editorial office is appropriate:

I submitted manuscript [ID] on [date]. Could you provide an update on its status?

That's it. Do not justify, do not express frustration, and do not email individual editors impulsively. Mention the manuscript ID and submission date so the editorial office can locate the file quickly.

When the status finally changes, you'll get one of these outcomes:

Desk rejection (most common). A brief email explaining the paper doesn't meet the journal's scope or impact bar. No reviewer comments. At ~90% rejection, this is the most likely outcome. The silver lining: you can resubmit to another journal immediately.

Revision requested. You'll receive reviewer reports and an editor letter specifying minor or major revisions. Science Advances gives authors about 3 months for major revisions. The revised manuscript re-enters "Under Evaluation" for re-review, and yes, the same opaque status applies again.

Rejected after review. Reviewer reports come back negative. This hurts more than a desk reject because you've invested 2--3 months, but the reviewer comments are useful for improving the paper before resubmission elsewhere.

Accepted (rare without revision). Direct acceptance from first submission is uncommon at Science Advances. Most accepted papers go through at least one round of revision.

Transfer offer. AAAS may offer to transfer your submission to another AAAS journal (e.g., Science Signaling, Science Immunology, Science Robotics). The transfer preserves reviewer reports and avoids a full re-review, which can save months. If you receive a transfer offer, take it seriously, the accept rate at the destination journal is typically higher for transferred papers because the reviewer work is already done.

Note on re-review after revision: When your revised manuscript goes back into the system, it shows "Under Evaluation" again. The re-review is usually faster (2--4 weeks), but the same status ambiguity applies. Don't assume the revision will be handled by the same reviewers, Science Advances may bring in an additional reviewer if the revision raises new questions.