Science Journal Review Time

The trend line is now back in a more normal range after the pandemic-era spike. Science was up from 44.7 in 2023 to 45.8 in 2024, but the more important interpretation is that the journal is still operating at flagship selectivity even as citations normalized from the 2021 high of 63.7.

Science uses a team of in-house editors with active research backgrounds who transitioned to editorial roles. Unlike some journals where decisions come from the editor-in-chief alone, Science has editors assigned by discipline (life sciences, physical sciences, etc.), and complex papers may be co-evaluated by two editors.

Two timing signals are worth grounding in current sources. AAAS's author guidance tells authors to wait at least 6 weeks before making a status inquiry. SciRev community data for Science, which sits alongside editor-provided journal information on the journal page, lists about 11 days to immediate rejection and 4.9 months total handling for accepted manuscripts. Those numbers fit the same operating pattern: fast editorial triage, then a longer path once the paper is worth external review.

In our pre-submission review work on Science-targeted manuscripts, we see the fastest progress when the cross-field consequence is visible before any methods detail is needed to decode it. The papers that drift tend to be technically strong but still asking the editor to infer the broad-significance case instead of seeing it immediately.

Science's editorial criteria states that the journal is looking for papers that are influential within or across fields and that materially advance scientific understanding. That bar is deliberately narrow. The journal publishes roughly 700-900 Research Articles per year from 10,000+ annual submissions across all article types.

Desk rejection at Science is fast and common. Science editors explicitly screen for whether the advance matters beyond the immediate field before they spend reviewer capital. Papers usually come back with a brief note from the editor explaining the mismatch. Most often the reason is one of these:

• The advance is significant within a field but not across fields
• The finding confirms what was already expected or suspected
• Scope fits better in a specialist Science family journal (Science Advances, Science Translational Medicine, Science Immunology, etc.)
• The paper describes a method or tool without a scientific discovery attached

The Science family of journals creates a useful alternative path. Science Advances, for example, accepts papers with field-level significance that don't clear the cross-disciplinary bar. If Science desk-rejects your paper, the editor sometimes suggests a Science family journal. Consider whether that offer matches your career needs before deciding where to resubmit.

Science covers the entire spectrum of natural sciences. Review timelines differ by field because:

Reviewer availability varies by subfield. In well-populated research areas like molecular biology or materials science, qualified reviewers are plentiful. In emerging or highly interdisciplinary areas, finding three suitable and willing reviewers can take 3-5 weeks.

Experimental validation expectations differ. Life sciences papers often require replication experiments, statistical power analysis, or additional controls that physical sciences papers don't. When editors anticipate these needs, they may request additional data before peer review, adding weeks.

Pre-publication embargo coordination. Science handles a large number of coordinated releases: papers tied to policy announcements, clinical trial results, or findings the AAAS press office plans to publicize. These papers can move faster or slower depending on coordination needs.

Once your paper is with reviewers, several things predictably delay the process:

Reviewer scheduling. Three reviewers, each given 4-6 weeks and typically delayed by their own research demands. Late reviewers are the single most common cause of timeline extension. Science editors will chase late reviewers but they're working with the same finite pool everyone else is.

Requests for clarification. If reviewers have questions mid-review that require clarification before they can complete their assessment, the editor may contact you for a response. This is uncommon but adds 2-3 weeks when it happens.

Post-review editorial deliberation. On papers with split reviewer opinions, editors sometimes consult a fourth reviewer or have an internal editorial discussion before making a decision. Strong papers with divided reviewers can sit for 2-4 extra weeks in this phase.

Pre-submission inquiry. Science actively encourages pre-submission inquiries for Research Articles and Reviews. Send a 200-word abstract and a statement of significance to the relevant disciplinary editor. Editors respond in 1-2 weeks. If the response is discouraging, you've saved months of queue time. If positive, you have informal feedback on the angle to develop.

Cover letter. Science editors describe the cover letter as the single most important document in the submission package. It needs to answer: what was the key open question, what did you find, and why would a paleontologist, a chemist, and an immunologist all care? The cross-disciplinary significance argument must be explicit, not implied.

Technical file preparation. Science has specific requirements for figure resolution (minimum 300 DPI), supplementary materials (separate from main text), and data availability statements. Papers that arrive with technical issues get held up at the administrative stage before any editor reads them.

Reviewer suggestions. You can suggest preferred reviewers. Science uses these at its discretion. Suggesting active researchers who've published at Science or peer journals in your area is more useful than suggesting your direct collaborators (who will be excluded).

Science asks authors not to inquire about status before 6 weeks. After that point, a brief inquiry through the submission portal or by email to the handling editor is appropriate.

If your paper has been in "Under Review" status for more than 10 weeks, it's usually because reviewer recruitment was slow or a reviewer is late. An inquiry at that point is reasonable and won't be seen as impatient.

If your paper moves to "Decision in Process" and stays there for more than 2 weeks, the editorial team is deliberating. Don't inquire during this stage unless it extends past 3 weeks.

Submit if:

• The result represents a major advance that readers across all of science would find important, not just specialists in one field
• Your evidence is dense and convincing enough for data-heavy Science reviewers who focus on reproducibility and evidence quality
• You can write a cover letter that explains why a paleontologist, a chemist, and an immunologist would all care about this finding
• The AAAS editorial culture aligns with your paper's strengths, particularly in evolutionary biology, ecology, climate science, or interdisciplinary physical sciences

Think twice if:

• The advance is significant within your field but not across fields, which is the most common desk rejection reason
• You need a decision within 2-3 months, as Science's peer review typically takes 3-5 months to first decision
• The paper describes a method or tool without a scientific discovery attached to it
• Science Advances (~10%) acceptance versus Science's under 7%

Last verified: April 2026 against AAAS editorial office data, SciRev aggregated reviewer reports, and Clarivate JCR 2024 (IF 45.8, 5-yr IF 49.7, JCI 8.98, Q1 Multidisciplinary Sciences, rank 3/135, 768 research articles/year, Cited Half-Life 11.5 years). The page's estimate of 700-900 Research Articles per year aligns with the JCR 2024 figure of 768.

Science's review culture is distinct from Nature and Cell Press, and understanding the differences helps you frame your paper correctly. The AAAS editorial model shapes what reviewers look for in ways that aren't obvious from the outside.

Science's AAAS roots show in its review culture. The journal was founded to advance science broadly, and reviewers are chosen to reflect that mission. It's common for one of three reviewers to come from a different field entirely, someone who can judge whether the paper communicates to a general scientific audience. That outside reviewer often drives the editorial decision.

This means Science papers need to work on two levels: they need to satisfy the technical reviewers that the science is rigorous, and they need to convince the outside reviewer that the result matters beyond the subfield. Papers that are technically perfect but require deep domain knowledge to appreciate tend to struggle at Science more than at Cell, where all reviewers are field experts.

A Science cross-disciplinary framing check can evaluate whether your paper's framing is strong enough for Science's outside-reviewer test.

In our pre-submission review work on Science submissions, the delays that matter most show up before reviewers ever write their reports.

Having worked with researchers through our Science submission readiness check who have submitted to Science, we can add context the journal's own documentation doesn't provide.

Science's editorial team is small and professional: full-time PhD editors, not working academics. They make desk decisions fast, typically within 1-2 weeks. If your paper survives past 2 weeks, it's almost certainly in peer review. The roughly 7% acceptance rate means 93% of submissions are rejected, most at the desk.

The review itself is thorough but not unusually slow. Science typically uses 2-3 reviewers, and first decisions after review come in 4-8 weeks. What makes Science's timeline feel longer than the numbers suggest is the revision process. Science editors set tight revision deadlines (often 4-6 weeks) and expect substantial new experiments or analyses, not just clarifications. If you're asked to revise, the clock restarts.

One pattern worth knowing: Science, like other AAAS journals, has a transfer system. If your paper is desk-rejected with feedback suggesting the work is strong but not broad enough for the flagship, Science Advances is the natural next step. The transfer preserves your submission date and any existing reviews. Many authors don't realize this pathway exists, and resubmit from scratch elsewhere, losing months.