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

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 11-day median to immediate rejection 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).

The AAAS editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, supplementary information separate, 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 papers.

The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates broad-significance, scientific rigor, and discipline routing. Complex papers may be co-evaluated by two editors. The 11-day median to immediate rejection reflects the rapid desk-screen pace at Science.

In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, papers that survive initial desk screen are sent to the Board of Reviewing Editors for rapid broad-significance assessment. The BoRE is a large external panel of academics who provide quick (typically 3 to 7 day) reads on whether a paper meets Science's broad-significance bar. This BoRE consultation adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal but is a distinctive feature of Science's editorial workflow compared to Nature or Cell.

AAAS handling editors typically invite 2 to 3 external reviewers. The recruitment window can take 7 to 14 days because reviewers with topic-matched broad-significance expertise are scarce. Reviewers are contacted before being sent a paper and are asked to return comments within 2 weeks for most papers.

Once reviewers agree to review, the typical Science peer-review cycle lasts 2 to 6 weeks per reviewer. Reviewers are asked to evaluate broad-significance, scientific rigor, and reproducibility. Reviewer reports for Science tend to be thorough; 2500 to 5000 word reports are typical given the high-stakes editorial decision.

After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. The 4.9-month median total handling for accepted papers reflects the multi-round nature of Science's review process.

• Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.

• Rejection within 5 to 11 days: Handling editor + BoRE desk rejection per the 11-day median.

• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the desk + BoRE filter.

• Still Under Review after 12 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the AAAS editorial office is appropriate.

• Status changes to "Decision Pending": Reports are in; expect a decision within 2 to 3 weeks.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Science authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 8 weeks at Under Review puts you in the early-to-middle portion of Science's 4.9-month median total handling distribution. 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 broad-significance reviewers who are scarce. If the portal still says Under Review at the 12-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the handling editor granted it. This is normal practice at AAAS.

What you should NOT do during the first 6 weeks is email the editorial office. AAAS author guidance explicitly asks authors to wait at least 6 weeks before any status inquiry.

• Do not email the editorial office during the first 6 weeks per AAAS guidance.

• 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:

Science Advances is the natural AAAS open-access cascade for broad-significance work where the AAAS family fits. AAAS supports cascade transfer with reviewer reports preserved. The transfer process takes 5 to 14 days.

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.

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

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, CONSORT, or STROBE checklists 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 AAAS reporting summary 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 (11-day median to immediate rejection, 4.9-month median total handling, 2-week reviewer target, 6-week author-inquiry waiting period), 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).

Reviewers at Science typically draw from one broad-significance specialist and one methodology or subfield reviewer. 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.