How long does eLife take to review?

eLife typically takes ~30 days to editorial assessment; reviewed preprints published regardless. The full review process involves 6 main stages: post your preprint on biorxiv, submit to elife via the submission portal, and peer review.

How much does it cost to publish in eLife?

eLife charges ~$2,000 USD as an article processing charge. Waivers available for researchers without funding

All Journal Guides

Journal Guide

eLife: Publishing Guide

Q: What is the acceptance rate of eLife?

eLife has an acceptance rate of ~15%. A common reason for rejection is not understanding the model before submitting. The single most common mistake at eLife is submitting without understanding that your paper, the reviewer reports, and your responses will be public regardless of the assessment. If you expect a traditional accept/reject process with private correspondence, eLife will surprise you. Read the documentation on eLife's reviewed preprint model carefully before submitting. The model is well-explained on eLife's website, and understanding it takes 20 minutes - failing to understand it can cause serious problems.

Q: Is eLife peer reviewed?

Yes, eLife is fully peer reviewed. All submissions undergo rigorous peer review by The Senior Editor assigns a Reviewing Editor (usually a senior scientist in the specific subfield) who selects 2-3 expert reviewers. Uniquely, reviewers read each other's reviews and discuss the paper before finalizing their assessments. This consultation produces a joint summary of the key issues along with individual reviewer comments. The Reviewing Editor synthesizes these into a decision letter. This process typically takes 4-6 weeks from assignment..

Open science's flagship: transparent peer review, public assessments, and preprints as first-class publications

N/A

Impact Factor (2024)

~15%

Acceptance Rate

~30 days to editorial assessment; reviewed preprints published regardless

Time to First Decision

What eLife Publishes

eLife is one of the most scientifically influential and editorially unusual journals in life sciences and biomedicine. Founded in 2012 by Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Wellcome, and the Max Planck Society, and published as a non-profit, eLife was established explicitly to change how scientific publishing works, not simply to create another prestigious journal. Its publishing model is fundamentally different from traditional journals, and understanding the difference is essential before submitting. In 2023, eLife moved to a reviewed preprint model: papers are first posted on bioRxiv, then submitted to eLife for peer review. After review, eLife publishes the reviewed preprint along with the peer review reports and author responses, regardless of the assessment outcome. This means eLife no longer issues traditional 'accept' or 'reject' decisions. Instead, papers receive public eLife assessments - evaluated using a vocabulary (landmark, fundamental, important, valuable, useful) that conveys quality without binary gatekeeping. In late 2024, Web of Science removed eLife from its Journal Citation Reports over this model, which means eLife no longer has a Journal Impact Factor. This is a significant change for researchers whose careers depend on impact factor metrics. What eLife does offer is scientific credibility, rigorous peer review from senior editors and expert reviewers, and a publishing philosophy that prioritizes scientific value over journal prestige. If your work is excellent and you value open, transparent science over a specific impact factor number, eLife is a genuine first-choice venue. If you need a JIF for your next grant or promotion, factor this into your decision.

Cell biology and biochemistry: molecular mechanisms, organelle biology, protein structure and function, cell signaling, cytoskeletal dynamics, and membrane biology in any model system
Developmental biology and stem cells: embryonic development, tissue patterning, organogenesis, stem cell fate decisions, and regeneration across model organisms
Neuroscience at all levels: molecular and cellular neuroscience, neural circuits, systems neuroscience, behavior, and computational approaches to brain function
Immunology and microbiology: innate and adaptive immunity, host-pathogen interactions, microbiome biology, and infectious disease mechanisms with strong mechanistic characterization
Computational biology and bioinformatics: algorithms, software tools, and analytical methods for biological data analysis, with rigorous validation and publicly available code
Genetics and genomics: from model organism genetics to human genomics, including single-cell approaches, epigenomics, and gene regulation studies
Ecology and evolutionary biology: population biology, evolutionary genetics, ecological dynamics, and animal behavior with rigorous quantitative approaches
Structural biology: protein structures and macromolecular complexes determined by cryo-EM, X-ray crystallography, or NMR, particularly those revealing mechanism

Editor Insight

“eLife is an experiment in open science that has succeeded scientifically but disrupted the traditional prestige economy. If you value transparent peer review, preprint culture, and open access, it's a genuine first-choice venue. If your career requires a Journal Impact Factor, factor the absence of one into your decision. The model is not for everyone by design - and that honesty is refreshing.”

What eLife Editors Look For

Scientific significance - landmark to useful, but not trivial

eLife editors assess work along a spectrum from 'landmark' (transformative, exceptional) through 'fundamental,' 'important,' and 'valuable' to 'useful' (solid contribution). All of these are publishable at eLife - the assessment is public, not a gating mechanism. What eLife does not publish is work that editors judge as not meeting the threshold of even 'useful': papers with fundamental methodological problems, papers confirming what's already established without adding insight, or papers too incremental to advance the field meaningfully. The key question editors ask is: does this paper make a genuine contribution to understanding, even if not a landmark one?

Methodological rigor that can withstand public scrutiny

Because eLife's peer review is public, methodological weaknesses are visible to the entire scientific community permanently. This raises the bar for methodological quality in a qualitatively different way from traditional journals. Reviewers and editors know their critiques are on record. Authors know their responses are on record. Work with genuine methodological problems does not benefit from the private resolution that happens at traditional journals. Submit work where you are confident the methodology will hold up to public expert scrutiny.

Open science practices throughout - data, code, preregistration

eLife was founded by open science advocates and expects open science practices as a matter of principle, not just compliance. Data underlying published figures must be deposited in appropriate public repositories. Analysis code must be in a public repository with sufficient documentation to run. For hypothesis-driven studies, preregistration is strongly encouraged. These expectations align with eLife's broader philosophy: science is more credible and more useful when it is transparent and reproducible.

Comfort with the reviewed preprint model and public review

Submitting to eLife means your paper, the reviewer reports, and your responses to those reports will all be public - regardless of the assessment outcome. If reviewers identify significant problems with your data or methodology, those problems are visible in the published review. If you respond defensively or dismissively to criticism, that response is also public. The model rewards scientists who engage with criticism constructively and transparently, and creates reputational risk for those who don't.

Preprint-first workflow - your paper should already be on bioRxiv

eLife's model assumes that papers submitted for review have already been posted as preprints on bioRxiv or medRxiv. The reviewed preprint pipeline depends on this: the preprint is the version that gets reviewed, and the eLife-reviewed preprint is posted as an updated version of the same bioRxiv record. If you need to keep your findings private until journal publication - for competitive reasons, patent applications, or otherwise - eLife's model creates specific problems you need to weigh.

Substantive mechanistic or analytical contribution, not just descriptive

eLife has consistently favored work that advances mechanistic understanding over descriptive cataloging. An atlas of cell types is more compelling if it reveals new biology about developmental trajectory or disease mechanism. A GWAS is more compelling if it includes functional follow-up. A behavioral study is more compelling if it identifies circuit or molecular mechanisms. Purely descriptive work - the first catalog of X in organism Y - faces a higher bar at eLife than at journals that value comprehensiveness over mechanism.

Why Papers Get Rejected

These patterns appear repeatedly in manuscripts that don't make it past eLife's editorial review:

Not understanding the model before submitting

The single most common mistake at eLife is submitting without understanding that your paper, the reviewer reports, and your responses will be public regardless of the assessment. If you expect a traditional accept/reject process with private correspondence, eLife will surprise you. Read the documentation on eLife's reviewed preprint model carefully before submitting. The model is well-explained on eLife's website, and understanding it takes 20 minutes - failing to understand it can cause serious problems.

Expecting an impact factor when planning your submission

eLife no longer has a Journal Impact Factor. Web of Science removed eLife from JCR in late 2024 because the reviewed preprint model doesn't fit the traditional article counting methodology. If your career evaluation, grant application, or promotion case requires publications in journals with JIF, you need to factor this into your submission decision. eLife's scientific credibility is high, but the absence of a JIF is a real practical consideration for some researchers.

Writing defensive or dismissive responses to reviewer comments

At traditional journals, your responses to reviewers are private. At eLife, they are permanently public. A response that dismisses a reviewer's concern without engaging substantively, or that responds to criticism with hostility, is visible to every scientist who reads your paper in the future. eLife's model rewards constructive engagement. Treat every reviewer comment as a public statement about your paper, and respond accordingly.

Submitting work you need to keep confidential

If your paper involves a pending patent, a competitive scoop you're trying to protect, or unpublished data from a collaborator who hasn't approved public disclosure, eLife's model creates problems. The preprint posts immediately, the reviews are public after the assessment, and the entire correspondence is public. There is no confidential phase in eLife's reviewed preprint process.

Treating eLife as a 'lower bar' version of Cell or Nature

eLife's significance bar is genuinely high. 'Landmark' and 'fundamental' eLife papers represent science that would be competitive at Nature, Cell, or Science. 'Valuable' and 'useful' papers represent solid advances - not trivial confirmatory work. Papers judged below the 'useful' threshold are not published. If you submit because you assume eLife publishes anything with open access fees, the editorial assessment will correct that assumption.

Not preparing for transparent peer review - submitting preliminary data

At traditional journals, preliminary data in a submitted manuscript gets resolved in private revision. At eLife, if reviewers flag that your data is preliminary or your sample size is underpowered, that observation is public. Do not submit to eLife until your data is solid and your analysis is complete. The transparency of the process is an asset for strong papers and a liability for preliminary ones.

Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?

The quick diagnostic reads your full manuscript against eLife's criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.

Run Free Readiness Scan →

Insider Tips from eLife Authors

eLife assessments function as a quality signal the field actually reads

eLife publishes papers with assessments like 'landmark,' 'fundamental,' 'important,' 'valuable,' or 'useful.' These are not random labels - they reflect genuine editorial judgment from senior scientists. A 'landmark' or 'fundamental' eLife paper carries real prestige signal even without a JIF. Promotion committees and grant reviewers in life sciences increasingly understand eLife's model, and a high-tier eLife assessment can carry similar weight to publication in a comparable-prestige journal.

Fee waivers are readily available - don't let the APC deter you

eLife's publication fee is ~$2,000 USD. This is low relative to Nature (~$11,690) or Cell Press journals (~$7,000+). More importantly, eLife has a clear waiver policy: researchers without access to institutional or grant funding for APCs can request a full waiver. eLife does not want the APC to be a barrier to publication. If cost is an issue, request a waiver when submitting - they are approved routinely.

Consultant reviewers discuss papers before finalizing assessments

eLife uses a model where reviewers (called Consulting Editors or external reviewers) discuss papers with each other before finalizing their individual reviews and the joint summary. This consultation produces more coherent, less contradictory feedback than traditional independent review. Instead of three reviewers with three entirely different priorities, eLife produces a consensus review that identifies the key issues the community agrees on. This is actually very useful for revision: you know exactly what matters.

Computational and methods papers have a distinct pathway - and get rigorous review

eLife has published some of the most influential computational biology papers and methods: cryo-EM processing tools, connectome reconstruction methods, population genetics software. Computational papers submitted to eLife receive rigorous review from computational experts who verify that the code runs, the benchmarks are fair, and the method works on real data. A well-implemented computational method with clear biological utility is a natural eLife submission.

The reviewing editor assignment matters - check who handles your field

eLife uses Senior Editors (usually prominent scientists in the relevant field) who make decisions and assign Reviewing Editors for each manuscript. Senior Editors are listed on eLife's website. If a senior editor in your specific subfield recently published a high-profile paper adjacent to yours, that editor likely handles submissions in that area. This information is public and worth knowing before submitting.

Your preprint gets immediate community feedback alongside formal review

Because eLife requires a bioRxiv preprint, your paper starts receiving community feedback - Twitter/X discussion, direct comments, citations from groups working in the same area - from the moment it posts, while formal peer review is still underway. This can be strategically valuable: preprint citations establish priority, community feedback can identify issues before formal review, and visibility builds while the paper is under review rather than afterward.

Revised versions post as updated bioRxiv records

When you revise an eLife submission and resubmit, the revised version is posted as an updated bioRxiv preprint. The eLife assessment is updated to reflect the new version. This means the scientific community can track the evolution of your paper - original submission, reviewer comments, revision - as a transparent record. Some scientists find this intellectually valuable; others find it uncomfortable. Know which camp you're in before submitting.

eLife is particularly strong for neuroscience, developmental biology, and cell biology

While eLife covers all of life science, it has particularly deep expertise and readership in neuroscience, developmental biology, structural biology, and cell biology. The journal's founders came predominantly from these fields. Papers in these areas receive expert editorial handling and reach the most engaged readership within the eLife community.

The eLife Submission Process

Post your preprint on bioRxiv

Before or simultaneously with submission

eLife's reviewed preprint model requires that your paper be posted on bioRxiv (or medRxiv for clinical research) before or at the time of eLife submission. This is not optional - the eLife review process is built around the preprint as the primary record. Post your complete, final manuscript. The version posted is the version reviewed.

Submit to eLife via the submission portal

Day 1

Submit the bioRxiv preprint link along with a cover letter explaining the significance of the work and its fit for eLife. Include your bioRxiv DOI. No separate manuscript files are required if the bioRxiv preprint is the current version. In your cover letter, explicitly address why the work is significant for the life science community broadly and suggest 4-5 potential Reviewing Editors with expertise in the relevant area.

Senior Editor assessment

1-3 weeks

A Senior Editor with expertise in the relevant field assesses scope fit and whether the work merits peer review. This initial assessment typically takes 1-3 weeks. Papers that are clearly outside scope, lack novelty, or have obvious methodological problems are returned without review. eLife sends these papers without review approximately 25-35% of the time. The Senior Editor communicates the reason for returning papers without review, which can be informative for resubmission elsewhere.

Peer review with reviewer consultation

4-6 weeks after editorial assessment

The Senior Editor assigns a Reviewing Editor (usually a senior scientist in the specific subfield) who selects 2-3 expert reviewers. Uniquely, reviewers read each other's reviews and discuss the paper before finalizing their assessments. This consultation produces a joint summary of the key issues along with individual reviewer comments. The Reviewing Editor synthesizes these into a decision letter. This process typically takes 4-6 weeks from assignment.

eLife assessment and public posting

Immediately after editorial assessment decision

The paper receives an eLife assessment with significance vocabulary (landmark, fundamental, important, valuable, or useful) and strength of evidence evaluation. The reviewed preprint - including the paper, the reviews, and the author response - is posted publicly on the eLife website and linked to the bioRxiv record. This happens regardless of whether the paper will be revised. The assessment is permanent and public.

Revision (if pursuing higher assessment or addressing major concerns)

Variable; 30-90 days for most revisions

Authors can revise in response to reviewer comments. Revision is optional - the original reviewed preprint remains publicly available. However, substantive revisions that address major reviewer concerns can result in an improved eLife assessment and a more favorable public record. Submit a revised bioRxiv version along with a detailed point-by-point response. The reviewing editor re-evaluates and may or may not request additional review.

eLife by the Numbers

Journal Impact Factor(Removed from Web of Science JCR in late 2024 due to reviewed preprint model)	N/A
CiteScore (Scopus)(Under review following model change)	N/A
Submissions per year	~8,000
Proceeds to peer review	~65-75% of submissions
Published (assessed)	All peer-reviewed papers
Time to first editorial decision	1-3 weeks
Time to complete review	~30-45 days after assignment
APC(Waivers available for researchers without funding)	~$2,000 USD
Open access model	100% CC-BY
Founded(Funded by HHMI, Wellcome, Max Planck)	2012
Reviewed preprint model	Launched 2023

Before you submit

eLife accepts a small fraction of submissions. Make your attempt count.

The pre-submission diagnostic runs a live literature search, scores your manuscript section by section, and gives you a prioritized fix list calibrated to eLife. ~30 minutes.

Run Free Readiness Scan See a sample report

Article Types

Research Article

No strict limit; typically ~5,000-8,000 words main text

Full research reports covering the complete story of a scientific investigation. No strict word limit. Figures, supplementary data, and methods should be complete. As a reviewed preprint, the article is the version posted on bioRxiv and reviewed by eLife. All data, code, and reagents must be publicly available.

Short Report

~2,500-3,500 words

Focused reports of significant but narrower findings - a specific mechanistic insight, a new tool, or an important observation that doesn't require a full Research Article. Same significance standard applies. Must be complete and conclusive, not preliminary. Typically 2,500-3,500 words.

Tools and Resources

Variable; focus on documentation quality

New experimental methods, software tools, datasets, or reagents that enable research by the community. The tool or resource must be publicly available, thoroughly validated, and accompanied by documentation sufficient for independent use. Code repositories and data deposits are required, not recommended.

Review Article

Variable; typically ~5,000-10,000 words

Comprehensive synthesis of a research field or emerging area. Primarily commissioned by eLife editors from recognized experts. Unsolicited Reviews are occasionally considered for genuinely novel synthesis of fields or methodologies that lack a recent authoritative overview.

Landmark eLife Papers

Papers that defined fields and changed science:

RELION-3: cryo-EM structure determination software (Zivanov, Nakane & Scheres, 2018) - over 1,900 citations, standard tool in the field
RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells (Mali et al., 2013) - early CRISPR-Cas9 applications
A connectome of the adult Drosophila central brain (Scheffer et al., 2020) - complete neural wiring diagram
Reproducibility in cancer biology - the Replication Project (multiple systematic replication papers, 2015-2021)
Comprehensive maps of Drosophila olfactory circuit processing (Jefferis lab, eLife 2014) - neuroscience circuit mapping benchmark

Preparing a eLife Submission?

Get pre-submission feedback from reviewers who've published in eLife and know exactly what editors look for.

Run Free Readiness Scan

Need expert depth? Human review from $1,000

NDA-protected

Confidential

Primary Fields

Cell BiologyDevelopmental BiologyNeuroscienceImmunology and MicrobiologyComputational BiologyStructural BiologyGenetics and GenomicsEcology and Evolutionary Biology

Related Journal Guides

All journal guides

All articles

Ready to submit to eLife?

A desk rejection costs months. Get expert feedback before you submit, from scientists who know exactly what eLife editors look for.

Need field-expert depth? Human review from $1,000