Last updated: April 2026 · 8 min read · Audience: Authors, students, early-career researchers · Reading level: Introductory
Introduction
Peer review is the slowest stage in most publishing pipelines, and authors with deadlines often look specifically for journals that move quickly through it. The relevant question is whether the journal has built efficiency into its workflow or whether it has simply removed steps that should not be removed.
This page focuses on the peer review window specifically — submission to first decision — rather than the entire publication timeline. Journals running efficient review can still take additional weeks for revision and publication; that part is treated in the related pages on overall publication speed.
Why this problem exists
Peer review depends on volunteer reviewer time. Manuscripts can sit in assignment queues for weeks before reviewers commit, and once committed, reviewers have other obligations. The total time from submission to first decision varies widely with the journal's editorial workload and the breadth of its reviewer pool.
Journals that have invested in active editorial offices, structured review templates, and broad reviewer panels run substantially faster as a structural matter. The investment is not visible to authors directly but is reflected in published timelines and the substance of reviewer comments.
Available solutions
Three patterns of efficient peer review are common at credible journals.
| Pattern | Typical time to first decision | What enables it |
|---|---|---|
| Active editorial office, broad reviewer pool | 14–28 days | Many reviewers, fast assignment |
| Specialty journal with focused community | 21–35 days | Reviewers know the topic well |
| Rapid communications track | 7–21 days | Brief format, abbreviated but real review |
| Skipped or token review (avoid) | Hours to days | Review removed, not optimised |
The first three are legitimate. The fourth is what authors must learn to recognise. The key 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
Journals running rapid communications tracks for short-format articles complete review in 1–3 weeks. For full original articles, 14–28 days to first decision in journals with broad reviewer pools is realistic. Anything faster than this without explanation should be examined.
If cost is the primary constraint
Peer review speed is independent of cost. Subscription journals (free to authors) can be quick or slow; high-APC journals can be quick or slow. Diamond open-access journals tend to be slower because they often run on volunteer editorial labour.
If acceptance probability matters most
Quick review does not imply higher acceptance rates. Some of the most selective journals run highly efficient review; some of the slowest are also less selective. Acceptance probability is determined by editorial standards, not by review speed.
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.
- 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 commonly 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 (suggesting no review occurred); titles whose review timelines are inconsistent with field norms.
Decision guidance
If a journal claims unusually fast review, verification is straightforward: sample three or four recent articles and check whether they show evidence of substantive revision (response letters, version histories, or visible changes from preprints). If revisions are not visible anywhere in the journal, the speed probably reflects abbreviated rather than efficient review.
| Review signal | Stronger | Weaker |
|---|---|---|
| Time to first decision | 14–28 days, with median disclosed | Hours to days; no median quoted |
| Number of reviewers | Two or more, named in process docs | One or unspecified |
| Reviewer comment substance | Multi-paragraph, structured | Generic boilerplate |
| Editorial board | Active, identifiable, reachable | Static, unverifiable |
| Visible revisions | Many recent articles show changes | Articles appear to skip revision |
Example scenarios
Scenario: an urgent author with a hard deadline
Under deadline pressure, the realistic strategy is to target a journal with a documented 14–28 day first-decision time and a focused short-format option. Avoid the temptation to relax review-quality expectations in exchange for marginal additional speed; a single failed submission to a venue with empty review is more expensive than waiting for credible review elsewhere.
Scenario: a student preparing first publication
First-time authors benefit from real reviewer feedback even when it slows the timeline. A journal with structured review and 21–28 days to decision is usually a stronger first-publication choice than a faster venue without substantive comments. The reviewer comments are themselves the value, not just the acceptance.
Scenario: a budget-limited researcher needing fast turnaround
Budget-limited authors with deadlines are particularly susceptible to predatory venues that combine low fees with claims of fast review. The realistic alternative is a low-APC continuous-publication journal with documented review timelines under 30 days; even with the additional time, the publication outcome is far stronger.
What to do next
If a target journal has been identified, the most useful pre-submission verification is to read recent articles and confirm that revisions occurred. Authors targeting EP Journals Group venues operate under documented double-blind peer review with two or more reviewers per manuscript and response times consistent with the timelines published 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