Free scoping read. A written assessment of your manuscript in two business days, at no cost.

Start one
Contents

On this page

  1. Sequence of stages
  2. Categories of editorial decision
  3. Distribution of time across the stages

Academy · Concepts & Definitions · Submission to decision flow

From Submission to First Decision: The Editorial Stages of Manuscript Processing

The status ‘under review’ covers several distinct stages that differ in duration for different reasons. Identifying the stage a manuscript has reached determines what action, if any, is appropriate.

Pubrica AcademyWritten by a journal operations specialist Reviewed byan editorial consultant Published10 October 2026 Last checked10 October 2026 Reading time7 minutes Sources1 peer-reviewed

The submission-to-decision process of most journals follows a consistent sequence of stages (technical or quality check, editor assignment, reviewer invitation, peer review and decision), and publishers including Wiley document this sequence explicitly for authors tracking the status of a submission.

Learning objectives

  • The typical stages between submission and a first editorial decision.
  • The distinction between administrative stages and stages that depend on securing willing reviewers.
  • The standard decision categories that a manuscript may receive.

Common misconceptions

  • “‘Under review’ indicates that reviewers are actively reading the manuscript.” Many systems display ‘under review’ from the moment a handling editor is assigned, a period that may include the time spent inviting reviewers and awaiting their acceptance, before any reviewer has begun reading.
  • “A prolonged period at one stage indicates a problem.” Reviewer invitation may require multiple rounds if invited reviewers decline or do not respond; this is normal and does not in itself indicate a problem with the manuscript.

Sequence of stages

Wiley's author-facing guidance describes the sequence as: submission received; an initial quality or technical check (completeness, formatting, scope fit, sometimes a plagiarism screen); assignment to a handling editor; that editor evaluating the manuscript for suitability, including the option of a desk rejection before review begins; reviewer invitation, which may take more than one round if invited reviewers decline; the review period itself once reviewers accept; and the handling editor's first decision once reports are in1.

Categories of editorial decision

Publisher guidance, including Wiley's, generally groups first decisions into four categories: accept (sometimes with minor required edits before formal acceptance), minor revision, major revision, and reject1. These categories are publisher/journal conventions rather than a single standard codified by a body such as COPE or ICMJE — specific wording and criteria vary by journal.

Distribution of time across the stages

Of the stages above, the ones most variable in duration are the desk-review decision (how quickly an editor can assess fit and either reject or proceed) and reviewer invitation (which depends on how many invited reviewers accept, and how quickly). The review period itself, once reviewers have accepted, is usually bounded by a journal-set deadline, though extensions are common.

Key points

Key points

A manuscript moves through a consistent sequence of technical check, editor assignment, possible desk rejection, reviewer invitation (possibly over multiple rounds), review and decision. In most systems, the ‘under review’ status begins well before reviewers are reading the paper.

Practical application

Practical application

  1. The status labels used by the specific journal’s system should be checked before their meaning is assumed. Conventions for ‘under review’ differ between submission systems; some display it from editor assignment, others only once reviewers accept.
  2. A slow reviewer-invitation stage should not be interpreted as an indication of quality. Reviewer availability is the most variable part of the process and does not indicate anything about the manuscript itself.
  3. Authors should identify the decision categories used by the target journal. The guidance of the specific journal should be consulted, because accept, minor revision, major revision and reject categories and their exact criteria vary between publishers.

Frequently asked questions

No — a desk rejection happens before peer review, decided by the handling editor or editor-in-chief alone, usually on fit or scope grounds rather than a full technical assessment.

Many systems set this status at editor assignment or reviewer invitation, which can precede the start of reviewing, so the label alone does not confirm that reviewers are reading the manuscript.

Yes. Most journals permit a courteous status enquiry after a reasonable interval; the specific journal’s guidance should be consulted regarding appropriate timing.

References

  1. Wiley Author Services. Peer review process and timeline. read 10 October 2026. View Wiley Author Services guidance

Every source above is a peer-reviewed article, a publisher’s record of one, or a standard issued by the body that owns it. Each carries the date it was last read. Where a standard moves, this article is revised rather than left up with a note.

How to cite this article

Pick your referencing style and copy it. Your university or target journal may vary the punctuation — check its guide if it has one.

Pubrica Academy. (2026, October 10). From Submission to First Decision: The Editorial Stages of Manuscript Processing. Pubrica. https://pubrica.com/academy/flowcharts/submission-to-first-decision-flow/

This article is written to be learned from. Cite it if you are referring to what it says; if you are using the evidence behind it, cite the sources listed above instead.

Status-check reference

The submission system’s status label should be matched to the likely underlying stage.

Submitted / with editor: technical check or desk-review stage
Under review (early): reviewer invitation likely in progress
Under review (later): reviewers likely have accepted and are reading
Decision in process: reports received, editor finalising a decision
Decision made: first decision issued

Pubrica AcademyWritten and maintained by Pubrica’s subject matter experts. Articles are revised when the underlying standards change, and each article states the date on which it was last reviewed.

How Pubrica can help

Pubrica assists authors in interpreting submission-system status and in drafting appropriately timed, professional status enquiries to the editorial office.

Submit an enquiry Get help interpreting your submission status

Explore

Related Academy articles

Selected from the same topic and category, with the most recent first.

Template

Cover letter and rebuttal shells

A cover letter an editor can scan in thirty seconds, and a rebuttal table separating what you concede from what you defend.

10 October 2026 · 7 min read

Checklist

Before you submit

Declarations, reporting checklist, figure specifications and reference check, in the order a screening editor applies them.

10 October 2026 · 7 min read

Infographic

The peer review decision tree

What each decision letter means and what it does not.

10 October 2026 · 6 min read

Find something else

Search the Pubrica Academy

Access is free and requires no account. Enter a topic, or open the full library to filter by category, sub-topic or resource type.

Identifying the current stage of a manuscript

A scoping assessment is free and takes two business days. It provides a written assessment of what the work requires and which specialist would undertake it.

Get a free quote Ask about your own case
Get a free quote

Regulations

Check your project against this rule

  1. 1Your work
  2. 2Your details
  3. 3Send
What do you need?

Material you send is held under signed confidentiality, with access limited to the assigned team and encrypted transfer. It is not used to train anything and is not passed to third-party tools. Ask for the agreement before you send anything you would rather cover first.