Science Advances 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a Science Advances deputy editor or associate editor evaluates whether the broad-significance and scientific validity warrant Science Advances's editorial slots. About 40 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage within 2 to 4 weeks. A desk rejection most often means the editor concluded that the work would fit better at a sister AAAS journal (Science flagship for top-tier broad-significance, Science Translational Medicine for clinical-translation, Science Signaling for cell-signaling) or that the Science Advances broad-significance bar is not met.

The Science Advances editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with data and code, AAAS template formatting, reporting checklists where applicable (ARRIVE for animal work, CONSORT for clinical trials, STROBE for observational studies), cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, IRB approvals, data-availability statement, and trial-registration documentation for clinical-trial components.

The handling deputy editor or associate editor reads the paper and evaluates broad-significance, scientific validity, and Science Advances subspecialty routing across physical sciences, life sciences, social sciences, computer science, engineering, and medicine.

In parallel with the deputy editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the AAAS editorial team where peer deputy editors and associate editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at Science Advances or at sister AAAS journals. This editor consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Science Advances deputy editors typically invite 2 to 3 AAAS-assigned academic reviewers, with reviewer recruitment typically taking 7 to 14 days. AAAS-assigned reviewers are selected from the broad pool of academic reviewers across the very broad range of disciplines Science Advances covers.

Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical Science Advances peer-review cycle lasts 4 to 8 weeks per reviewer, contributing to the 6 to 12 week post-screen first-decision window. Reviewers are asked to evaluate broad-significance, scientific validity, and reproducibility. Reviewer reports for Science Advances tend to be focused; 1500 to 3000 word reports are typical.

After reports return, the associate editor synthesizes them and the deputy editor finalizes the recommendation. If your paper has been Under Evaluation for 4 or more weeks without a desk rejection, it is likely in external review with 2 to 3 AAAS-assigned academic reviewers.

• Rejection within 1 to 14 days: Administrative issue or fast-track desk rejection.
• Rejection within 14 to 28 days: Deputy editor + associate editor desk rejection per the 40 percent figure.
• Still Under Review after 4 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Science Advances desk screen and is likely in external review.
• Still Under Review after 12 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the AAAS Centralized Tracking System is appropriate.
• Status changes to "Decision Pending": Reports are in; expect a decision within 1 to 2 weeks.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Science Advances authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 5 weeks at Under Review puts you right at Science Advances's 31-day median first editorial decision and within the 6 to 12 week first-decision window. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the associate editor preparing the recommendation for the deputy editor. Most reviewer-driven delays come from AAAS-assigned academic reviewer recruitment timing rather than slow reviews. If the portal still says Under Review at the 8-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the associate editor granted it. This is normal practice at Science Advances.

What you should NOT do during the 5-to-8-week window is email the editorial office. Science Advances deputy editors and associate editors are active researchers managing 60+ active papers per year around their own laboratories; an inquiry at 5 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your Science Advances paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and deputy editor cited:

Science (the AAAS flagship) is the natural AAAS top-tier cascade for top-tier broad-significance work. Science uses the AAAS Centralized Tracking System at cts.sciencemag.org; editorial contact science_editors@aaas.org.

Science Translational Medicine is the AAAS clinical-translation cascade.

Science Signaling is the AAAS cell-signaling cascade.

Science Immunology is the AAAS immunology cascade.

Science Robotics is the AAAS robotics cascade.

Nature Communications is the external Springer Nature broader-scope cascade. The Nature Communications Manuscript Tracking System at mts-ncomms.nature.com handles submission; ncomms@nature.com handles publisher-level inquiries.

PNAS is the external NAS broader-scope cascade.

eLife is a cascade option for life-sciences work under the Reviewed Preprint model.

AAAS asks reviewers at Science Advances to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

In our pre-submission work with Science Advances-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.

Narrow-significance framing flagged at deputy editor + associate editor desk screen. When the introduction frames the work too narrowly within one subspecialty without broad-significance for the Science Advances multidisciplinary readership, deputy editor desk rejection within 2 to 4 weeks is common. The strongest manuscripts frame the broader-significance.

Reproducibility gaps surface as reviewer concerns. When data and code are not deposited in public repositories or methods documentation is thin, reviewers consistently flag reproducibility concerns. The strongest manuscripts deposit data and code alongside submission.

AAAS family cascade offers from deputy editor. When the deputy editor concludes the work is rigorous but the broad-significance bar of Science Advances is exceeded (top-tier), transfer offers to Science flagship are common. AAAS editors take these transfers seriously.

This page was created from AAAS's public Science Advances information for authors at science.org/content/page/science-advances-information-authors, AAAS editorial documentation (~40 percent desk rejection rate, 31-day median first editorial decision per Science Advances Review Speed Feedback System, 2 to 4 weeks for desk decisions, 6 to 12 week post-screen window, AAAS-assigned academic reviewers, leadership under Holden Thorp EIC and Editor Laura Remis), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Science Advances-targeted manuscripts.

For the AAAS open-access landscape beyond Science Advances, see Science (AAAS flagship), Science Translational Medicine (clinical-translation), Science Signaling (cell-signaling), Science Immunology (immunology), Science Robotics (robotics), and external open-access multidisciplinary alternatives (Nature Communications, PNAS, eLife). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is AAAS open-access broad-significance (Science Advances), top-tier AAAS broad-significance (Science), AAAS clinical-translation (Science Translational Medicine), AAAS cell-signaling (Science Signaling), AAAS immunology (Science Immunology), AAAS robotics (Science Robotics), Nature Portfolio broader scope (Nature Communications), NAS broad-significance (PNAS), or Reviewed Preprint (eLife).

Reviewers at Science Advances typically draw from 2 to 3 AAAS-assigned academic reviewers across the very broad range of disciplines covered. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both broad-significance and scientific validity perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Science Advances broad-significance-plus-scientific-validity bar before submission, our Science Advances pre-submission diagnostic flags the broad-significance framing and reproducibility weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.