Science 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision

Science does not publish a list of CTS status labels, so this table follows the stages it does document.

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a Science handling editor and the Board of Reviewing Editors evaluate whether the broad-significance warrants Science's selective editorial slots. The 8-day median to a first decision reflects rapid desk-screen and BoRE evaluation. A desk rejection most often means the handling editor or BoRE concluded that the work would fit better at Science Advances (AAAS open-access cascade), Science Translational Medicine, Science Signaling, or external journals (Nature, Cell, PNAS).

Once you submit, CTS lists the manuscript as "Received" and every author gets an email with a link to confirm authorship. The package includes the manuscript file, a combined PDF, a cover letter, and any related papers, data files for review and MTAs. Science's editorial policies also ask for the ARRIVE guidelines for animal work, a CONSORT checklist at submission for randomized controlled trials, IRB approval and a statement of informed consent for research on humans, and a trial registration number for clinical trials.

The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates broad-significance, scientific rigor, and discipline routing. The 8-day median to a first decision reflects the rapid desk-screen pace at Science.

Most submitted papers are rated for suitability by members of Science's Board of Reviewing Editors, and the editors consider this advice in selecting papers for in-depth review. This consultation is invisible to the author in the portal but is a distinctive feature of Science's editorial workflow compared to Nature or Cell. Authors of papers that are not selected for review are notified promptly, within about 2 weeks.

Papers selected for in-depth review are evaluated by at least two outside reviewers. Reviewers are contacted before being sent a paper and are asked to return comments within 2 weeks for most papers.

Reviewers are asked to return comments within 2 weeks for most papers. Once all reviews are in, Science invites reviewers to read the other, still anonymous, reviews and comment within 2 business days; cross-review is encouraged but not required. Science can expedite the review process significantly for papers that need rapid assessment.

After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. The median time from submission to the first decision after outside review is 64 days, and the median time to acceptance is 184 days. When the letter turns out to be a major revision at Science, check its return deadline first.

• Rejection within about 2 weeks: Science notifies authors of papers not selected for review within about 2 weeks, and the median time to a first decision is 8 days.

• Still in review after 2 weeks: The paper has likely been selected for in-depth review.

• Still in review well past 64 days: The median to a first decision after outside review is 64 days, so a delay beyond it may reflect reviewer recruitment or a late report. A polite status-only note to the handling editor is appropriate.

• A decision email arrives: Authors are notified of decisions by email, and the status can be tracked in CTS.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Science authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 8 weeks is close to Science's 64-day median from submission to the first decision after outside review. Reports may still be arriving with the handling editor preparing for the editorial synthesis.

Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing rather than slow reviews because Science recruits topic-matched reviewers who are scarce. If the paper is still in review well past the median, the most likely explanation is that an assigned reviewer is late.

Science does not publish a minimum waiting period before a status inquiry, so keep any note short and status-only.

• Check your CTS record for status changes rather than emailing the editorial office early.

• Do not submit the paper anywhere else while it is Under Review at Science. AAAS has explicit prohibitions on dual submission.

• Prepare a point-by-point response template for likely reviewer concerns: broad-significance, scientific rigor, reproducibility.

• If you have related work submitted elsewhere or recently published, prepare disclosure language for when revisions are requested.

• Read recent Science papers in your subfield to calibrate the current editorial bar.

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

Before moving down that list, check whether the decision is one Science would reopen at all. Our Science appeal rejection guide covers the narrow case Science allows, a rejection resting on serious reviewer error, and how to write that letter.

Science Advances is the natural AAAS open-access cascade for broad-significance work where the AAAS family fits. Authors submitting to Science may indicate interest in transfer to another Science family journal; if the manuscript is a good candidate, they receive a transfer offer and confirm the choice before transfer starts. Editors at the second journal may use the information gathered during evaluation at Science to expedite review, including reuse of the reviews.

Science Translational Medicine is the AAAS specialty cascade for clinical-translation work.

Science Signaling is the AAAS specialty cascade for cell-signaling and systems-biology work.

Nature is the external cascade for top-tier broad-significance life-sciences work. Springer Nature operates independently from AAAS; reports do not transfer. The Nature Manuscript Tracking System at mts-nature.nature.com handles submission; nature@nature.com handles publisher-level inquiries.

Cell is the external cascade for top-tier life-sciences mechanism work. Cell Press uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact cell@cell.com.

PNAS is the external cascade for top-tier broad-significance work where the National Academy of Sciences direct-contribution or guest-editor model fits.

Science's peer-review page lists ethical guidelines for reviewers: objective evaluation, constructive and timely comments, reviewer anonymity, and confidentiality. The table below maps what reviewers typically weigh to actionable preparation. The evaluation criteria are our reading, not an AAAS checklist.

Across Science manuscripts, we have reviewed 50+ Science-targeted and flagship broad-science manuscripts in pre-submission and revision contexts. In our pre-submission review work across Science, Nature, Cell, PNAS, and adjacent broad-interest journals, we see three recurring reasons an Under Review manuscript later receives a hard revise or rejection. These are not official AAAS criteria; they are anonymized Manusights observations used to help authors prepare while waiting.

Source limitation: we rely on public AAAS guidance, community timing data, and our internal pre-submission review work, and we do not have access to private AAAS editorial records.

Narrow-significance framing flagged at desk + BoRE. When the Science introduction frames the work too narrowly around one mechanism, one cohort, or one model system without broader-significance generalization, desk + BoRE rejection is common. The strongest manuscripts frame the title, abstract, first paragraph, and Figure 1 around a broader-significance principle that resonates beyond the immediate subfield.

Check whether your Science broad-significance claim is visible →

Reporting-checklist gaps surface as reviewer requests. When ARRIVE or CONSORT materials are incomplete, reviewers consistently request expanded methods sections before issuing a final decision. The recurring Science-specific weak points are statistical analysis plans, sample-size justification, randomization details, original image controls, and human-subjects or animal-ethics documentation. The strongest revisions complete the required reporting items fully before submission.

Check if your Science reporting package is reviewer-ready →

AAAS family cascade offers from handling editor. When the Science handling editor concludes the work is rigorous but the broad-significance bar is not met, transfer offers to Science Advances or specialty AAAS titles are common. The papers most likely to receive a useful cascade offer have a clean cover letter, complete data-availability statement, and figure set that can move to the next AAAS journal without a structural rewrite.

Check your Science cascade response plan →

This section reflects Manusights pre-submission review work, not a claim of privileged access to Science editors or reviewers. Manusights uses uploaded manuscripts only to produce the requested review; we do not train on private author files. Authors using Manusights also have a 60-day money-back guarantee if the review is not useful.

Check your Science reviewer-risk profile

This page was created from AAAS's public editorial guidance at AAAS journal page, AAAS author information documentation and journal metrics (2-week reviewer target; 2025 medians of 8 and 64 days), SciRev community-reported transit data on Science, and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Science-targeted manuscripts.

For the AAAS general-science landscape beyond Science, see Science Advances (AAAS open-access cascade), Science Translational Medicine (clinical-translation specialty), Science Signaling (cell-signaling specialty), and external general-science alternatives (Nature, Cell, PNAS). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is broad-significance general-science (Science), AAAS open-access broad-significance (Science Advances), specialty AAAS scope (Science Translational Medicine, Science Signaling), or external general-science (Nature, Cell, PNAS).

Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially.

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