Science 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and Realistic Timelines

Science's system is more transparent than Nature's. You'll typically see distinct status labels as your paper moves through each phase, which means "Under Review" actually tells you something specific: reviewers have your manuscript.

Science's desk rejection rate is steep, but it's not arbitrary. The journal receives around 12,000 submissions per year and publishes roughly 800 research articles. The math doesn't leave room for kindness.

Here's what the editors are actually filtering for during those first 1-2 weeks:

• Broad significance. Will researchers outside your subfield care about this result? Science isn't a specialty journal. If your finding matters only to people already working on the same protein or the same alloy, it won't pass.
• Novelty, not just quality. A technically perfect study that confirms what people already suspected doesn't clear the bar. The editors are looking for results that change how people think about a problem.
• Complete evidence. Science papers are short (around 4,500 words for Research Articles), but the data package needs to be airtight. If your key claim rests on a single experiment without orthogonal validation, that's a red flag at this stage.
• Clarity of the advance. Can the editor summarize what's new in one sentence? If the contribution is buried or diffuse, the paper won't survive triage.

A desk rejection from Science doesn't mean your work is bad. It means the editors didn't see it fitting the very specific niche that Science occupies: papers that will change how a broad scientific audience thinks about something. Plenty of excellent science gets desk-rejected here and lands well at field-specific top journals.

The BoRE System

Science uses a Board of Reviewing Editors, which is different from how Nature or Cell handle things. The BoRE includes around 150 active scientists who serve as the first line of evaluation after the professional editors. When your paper arrives, a BoRE member with relevant expertise reads it and recommends whether to send it out for full review. This means your desk decision isn't made by a professional editor alone; it's informed by a working scientist in a related field.

This system has a practical upside: the person evaluating your paper at the desk stage actually understands the technical content. The downside is that BoRE members are busy academics, which can occasionally add a few days to the desk decision timeline.

Once your paper enters "Under Review," here's what's going on:

Reviewer selection. The handling editor (often the same BoRE member who recommended review) suggests 2-3 reviewers. Science typically uses 2-3 external reviewers per paper. They're chosen for direct expertise, and the journal makes an effort to avoid conflicts of interest. Reviewer invitations can take a week or more by themselves, since not everyone says yes on the first ask.

What reviewers are evaluating:

• Are the central claims supported by the presented data?
• Are there alternative explanations the authors haven't ruled out?
• Is the experimental design appropriate for the claims being made?
• Does the significance match what Science publishes?
• Are the methods reproducible from what's described?
• Is the statistical analysis sound and the sample size adequate?

The short-format factor. Science Research Articles are constrained to roughly 4,500 words. This means reviewers often pay close attention to supplementary materials, because that's where the full experimental detail lives. If your supplement is disorganized or hard to follow, reviewers will notice and they won't be happy about it.

Review turnaround. Science asks reviewers to return reports within 10-14 days. In practice, it's common for at least one reviewer to take 3-4 weeks. The journal's editorial staff follows up actively, but they can't force anyone to finish on time.

What Reviewers Don't See

It's worth knowing what reviewers at Science aren't told. They don't see each other's reports until after they've submitted their own. This is standard single-blind review: reviewers know who you are, but you won't know who they are. The handling editor may share reviewer identities with each other after reports are in, but that's at the editor's discretion.

Reviewers also don't see the BoRE member's initial assessment. They're evaluating your paper fresh, which means they might flag issues the BoRE member didn't raise, or they might be more enthusiastic than the desk evaluation suggested. This independence is by design. It's meant to prevent anchoring bias.

The Confidential Comments Box

Every Science reviewer form includes a section for "confidential comments to the editor." This is where reviewers say what they really think, without diplomatic softening. They might write something like "solid work but not Science-level" or "I'd accept this if the authors can nail the third experiment." You won't see these comments, but they heavily influence the editor's decision. If your public reviews are lukewarm but you still get a revision request, the confidential comments were probably more positive than the formal report suggested.

Accept

Rare on the first round. Almost all Science acceptances go through at least one revision cycle. If you get a first-round accept, you've done something unusual.

Minor Revision

The editors and reviewers are satisfied with the core findings but want small changes: clarified language, an additional statistical test, a figure revision. You'll typically get 2-4 weeks to turn this around. Papers that receive minor revision requests are almost always accepted.

Major Revision

This is the most common positive outcome at Science. The reviewers see real value in the work but want substantial additional evidence or analysis. Major revisions at Science often include requests for new experiments, additional controls, or reanalysis of existing data. You'll usually get 2-3 months, sometimes more.

A major revision request at Science is genuinely good news. The editors wouldn't invest the time if they didn't believe the paper could reach the bar. That said, you need to address every point. Don't skip comments you find annoying or think are wrong. Respond to each one directly, even if your response is a respectful disagreement with evidence.

Reject After Review

Even papers that make it to review can be rejected. Roughly 40-50% of reviewed papers at Science are ultimately turned down. Common reasons include:

• Reviewers identified a fundamental flaw in the methodology or interpretation
• The significance, on closer inspection, wasn't as broad as the desk screen suggested
• Competing work appeared during the review period (this happens more than you'd think)
• Reviewers couldn't agree, and the editor sided with the more critical assessment
• The scope turned out to be narrower than the abstract implied

Rejection after review at Science hurts more than a desk rejection because you've invested months in the process. But it comes with something valuable: detailed reviewer feedback from top experts in your field. Those reports are often more thorough than what you'd get from less selective journals. Use them. Even if you disagree with the decision, the technical feedback will make your paper stronger wherever it lands next.

A Note on "Reject with Encouragement to Resubmit"

Science occasionally uses this category, and it's confusing because it sounds like a soft rejection. In practice, it means the editors think the core idea is strong enough for Science but the current evidence package doesn't get there. They're telling you: "Come back with more data." This isn't a polite brushoff. If you can address the major concerns (which usually means 6-12 months of additional work), a resubmission has a real shot. Treat the original reviewer comments as your revision roadmap.

If you get revision requests, here's what works:

1. Create a point-by-point response document. Every comment gets a numbered response. Don't merge or paraphrase reviewer points.
2. Do the experiments they ask for. If a reviewer requests a specific control or validation, do it unless it's genuinely impossible. "We feel this is beyond the scope" rarely goes over well at Science.
3. Highlight changes clearly. Use tracked changes or colored text in your revised manuscript. Make it easy for reviewers to find what's different.
4. Don't argue just to argue. If a reviewer misunderstood something, consider that your writing might not have been clear enough. Fix the writing rather than explaining why the reviewer was wrong.
5. Respect the word limit. Science papers are short. If you need to add material to address reviewer concerns, you may need to cut something else or move it to the supplement.
6. Submit on time. If you can't meet the revision deadline, email the editor before it passes. They're usually flexible, but they don't appreciate surprises.

A Science rejection, whether at the desk or after review, isn't a dead end. If your paper made it to review at Science, it's competitive at a wide range of excellent journals.

Science Advances deserves special mention. It's published by the same organization (AAAS), and there's a transfer option. When Science rejects a paper, the editor may suggest transferring to Science Advances. This isn't a consolation prize; Science Advances is a well-regarded journal in its own right. Your reviews can transfer with the manuscript, which saves weeks of re-review. Take this option seriously if it's offered.

The transfer mechanics. If the editor suggests a transfer, you'll typically receive instructions to authorize the transfer through the submission system. Your manuscript, reviewer reports, and editor notes all move over. The Science Advances editors will evaluate the package and may accept without additional review, request a light revision, or in some cases send to one additional reviewer. The whole process is faster than starting from scratch. Most transferred papers that address the original reviewers' concerns are accepted at Science Advances within 4-8 weeks of transfer.

Don't treat it as a step down. Science Advances publishes strong multidisciplinary work. It's open access, which means your paper will likely get more reads than it would behind Science's paywall. For many researchers, especially those whose institutions value open access, this can actually be a better outcome for visibility and citation impact.

These are typical ranges. Individual experiences vary. Papers with hard-to-find reviewers or papers submitted during summer months (when many academics aren't checking email) can take longer.

Seasonal Patterns

Science doesn't officially slow down at any point in the year, but reviewer availability follows academic calendars. Submissions sent in late November through early January often experience longer reviewer turnaround because of holiday schedules. June through August can also be slow as reviewers travel to conferences or take vacations. If you have flexibility on when to submit, early fall (September-October) and late winter (February-March) tend to produce the fastest reviewer turnaround times. That said, don't delay a strong submission just to time the calendar. A good paper is a good paper regardless of when it arrives.

• 0-2 weeks after submission: Don't contact the journal. This is normal desk review time.
• 2-3 weeks with no status change: Still likely normal. Give it another week before worrying.
• Under Review for 4-6 weeks: This is the expected range. No need to follow up yet.
• Under Review for 8+ weeks: A polite status inquiry is reasonable. Keep it brief: "I'm writing to check on the status of manuscript SCI-XXXX. Any update on expected timeline would be appreciated."
• Decision Pending for 2+ weeks: Unusual. Worth a gentle check-in.

When you do follow up, email the editorial office rather than the handling editor directly. Be concise. Don't ask why it's taking so long. Just ask for a status update. The delay is almost always caused by a reviewer who hasn't returned their report, and the editors are probably already chasing them.

If you're sitting at "Under Review" right now, the hardest part is the waiting. You can't speed up the process, and checking the status portal twice a day won't change anything (even though we all do it). Use this time to start thinking about your response strategy. Re-read your manuscript with fresh eyes. You'll probably spot things you'd phrase differently now, and that's useful preparation for any revision request that might come.

Your paper beat the desk screen. That's a real accomplishment. Whatever happens next, the work was strong enough to earn serious consideration at one of the most selective journals in the world. That information is worth something regardless of the final decision.

• Science journal guide
• Science cover letter example
• Science acceptance rate
• Nature under review
• Cell under review
• PNAS under review
• Acceptance rates across 50+ journals
• Review timelines compared

Check whether your paper is ready to submit with a free readiness scan. It takes about 60 seconds.