Last updated: April 2026 · 8 min read · Audience: Authors, students, early-career researchers · Reading level: Introductory
Introduction
Short review time and fast publication are related but distinct: review time is the window from submission to first decision, while publication time covers the full pipeline including post-acceptance copy-editing. Authors looking specifically at the review window need different signals than those looking at total time.
This page focuses on the review window. The realistic floor for credible peer review is around 14 days; the realistic ceiling for 'short' review is around 28 days. Anything in between is achievable at well-run journals; anything outside this range warrants investigation.
Why this problem exists
Peer review depends on volunteer reviewer time. The two slow phases are reviewer assignment (waiting for reviewers to commit) and review duration (waiting for them to read and respond). Journals with broad reviewer pools and active editorial offices reduce both phases substantially. Journals running on volunteer editors with narrow reviewer panels do not.
A second factor is the kind of review the journal performs. Some journals prioritise scope and methodology checks at the editorial level (desk decisions on scope before reviewers see anything), while others send everything out for review. The first model returns quick decisions on scope misfits; the second returns comprehensive feedback at the cost of additional time.
Available solutions
Three patterns of short review time are common at credible journals.
| Pattern | Time to first decision | What enables it |
|---|---|---|
| Active editorial office, broad reviewer pool | 14–21 days | Many reviewers, fast assignment |
| Specialty journal with engaged community | 21–28 days | Reviewers know the topic deeply |
| Rapid communications track for short formats | 7–21 days | Brief format, abbreviated but real review |
| Skipped review (avoid) | Hours to days | No reviewers consulted |
The first three are legitimate. The fourth is what authors must learn to recognise. The signal is whether reviewer comments are substantive when they arrive, regardless of how quickly they arrive.
Best options based on situation
If speed is the primary driver
Continuous-publication open-access journals with active editorial offices are typically fastest. Verify by checking recent articles' submission and decision dates on the journal site. Sampling three or four recent articles indicates the journal's actual pace.
If cost is the primary constraint
Review time is independent of cost. Subscription journals can be quick or slow; open-access journals can be quick or slow. Diamond open-access journals tend to be slower because volunteer editorial labour adds variability. Editorial office investment, not cost model, determines speed.
If acceptance probability matters most
Short review time is independent of selectivity. Some of the most selective journals run efficient review; some of the slowest are also less selective. Acceptance probability is determined by editorial standards, not by review duration.
Practical recommendations
- Suggest reviewers when the system allows; this often saves 7–14 days at the assignment stage.
- Submit a fully formatted manuscript on first attempt; technical revisions delay reviewer assignment.
- Confirm the journal's stated review timeline against recent published articles' dates.
- Treat 'rapid review' marketing claims as questions to investigate, not features to celebrate.
- Respond to revision requests within the journal's window; author delays are often the slowest part.
What to avoid
Other patterns: journals quoting 'rapid review' but not disclosing the median time-to-decision; venues whose published articles include no evidence of revision; titles whose review timelines are inconsistent with field norms.
Decision guidance
If a journal claims unusually short review time, verification is straightforward: sample recent articles for evidence of substantive revision (response letters, version histories, visible changes from preprints). If revisions are not visible, the speed reflects abbreviated rather than efficient review.
| Review-time signal | Stronger | Weaker |
|---|---|---|
| Stated time to first decision | 14–28 days, with median disclosed | Hours; no median quoted |
| Number of reviewers | Two or more, named in policy docs | One or unspecified |
| Reviewer comment substance | Multi-paragraph, structured | Generic boilerplate |
| Visible revisions | Many recent articles show revision | Articles appear unrevised |
Example scenarios
Scenario: an urgent author needing fast decision
Under deadline pressure for a decision (rather than for full publication), target a journal with documented 14–28 day review windows, prepare the manuscript fully, and submit to the strongest fit. Avoid lowering review-quality expectations in exchange for marginal additional speed; a single failed submission to a venue with empty review usually consumes the entire timeline.
Scenario: a student needing first reviewer feedback
First-time authors benefit from real reviewer feedback even when it slows the timeline slightly. A journal with structured review and 21–28 days to first decision provides usable reviewer comments; a faster venue without substantive comments produces an acceptance email but no learning value. The reviewer comments are themselves the value.
Scenario: a budget-limited researcher with deadline
Budget-limited authors with deadlines are particularly susceptible to predatory venues combining low fees with claims of fast review. The realistic alternative is a low-APC continuous-publication journal with documented review timelines; even with the additional days, the publication outcome is far stronger.
What to do next
If a target journal has been identified, verifying the actual review pace by examining recent articles' dates is the most useful pre-submission step. Authors targeting EP Journals Group venues can submit through the central form; the editorial process and typical timelines are documented on each journal site.
Frequently asked questions
Related topics across the knowledge centre
Guide
Avoiding Plagiarism in Academic Research
A clear explanation of what counts as plagiarism in academic research, how to avoid it in practice, and how journals detect and respond to it.
Guide
What is Indexing in Academic Journals?
An overview of how academic indexing operates, the principal categories of indexing services, and the implications of indexing status for authors and journals.
Comparison
EP Journals vs Predatory Journals: How to Tell the Difference
A practical comparison helping researchers distinguish legitimate structured open-access publishers, such as EP Journals, from predatory journals that lack genuine peer review, transparent fees, or verifiable editorial governance.
Comparison
Indexed vs Non-Indexed Journals: A Practical Comparison
A practical comparison of indexed and non-indexed journals across multiple indexing tiers, helping authors interpret indexing claims accurately and choose venues whose indexing matches their needs.
Resource
Journals for Students: Where to Publish Early Research
Students are typically best served by open-access journals that maintain transparent peer review, modest article processing charges (APCs), and clearly documented timelines.
Resource
Journals for Multidisciplinary Research
Multidisciplinary work fits journals explicitly oriented toward cross-field research, generalist scientific journals, or specialty journals where the work's primary discipline anchors. The choice depends on which audience the work most needs to reach.
Publishing
Low-Cost Research Journals
Low-cost journals span subscription venues with no author fee, diamond open-access journals fully subsidised by institutions, and open-access journals with modest APCs. Verifying credibility matters more than the headline number.
Publishing
How to Publish a Research Paper in Law
A practical, field-specific guide to publishing research in law, covering norms, challenges, the step-by-step process, where to publish, and how to choose between journal types.
Related reading and next steps
- Submission portal — Submit a manuscript through the central form
- Journals list — Six peer-reviewed journals across disciplines
- How long does peer review take — Realistic timelines by journal type
- How peer review works — Models, reviewers, decisions
- Peer-reviewed vs non-peer-reviewed — Quality control and credibility
- Publishing in data science — Field-specific scope and submission notes
- Journals with peer review — Verifying genuine peer review
Editorial enquiries
Questions about this guide or about preparing a manuscript for submission may be directed to the editorial office. Where a query relates to a specific journal in the portfolio, please indicate the journal abbreviation in your message.
Email: editor@ep-journals.org