Your submission has said "Under Review" since the second week of June. It is now August. You have refreshed that status line more times than you would admit to a colleague — or, if you submitted by email, reread your own acknowledgement again.
You have drafted a status enquiry three times and deleted it three times. The sentence you cannot get past is the one where you sound impatient.
This post is not a map of the pipeline — we have written the whole journey separately. It starts where you are: stuck, and unsure whether asking makes things worse.
Most of the wait is not review — it is finding reviewers who will say yes
Authors reasonably read "under review" as: somebody is reading the paper. Often nobody is. For long stretches a manuscript sits between reviewers rather than with them, while an editor works through a list of people who might agree to take it.
Peer review is unpaid work done in the gaps of a full academic job, so declining is ordinary. That is general publishing mechanics, not a report on your file; this post shows you how to ask about yours.
Four ways a reviewer invitation fails, and why each one restarts the clock
All four end the same way — the editor goes back to the list — at very different costs in calendar time.
- An immediate decline. The cheapest: refused within a day or two, and the editor moves on.
- No response at all. Costlier than a decline: silence has to time out before it counts as a refusal, so it costs more days than a flat no.
- Accepted, then gone quiet. The reviewer agrees, the deadline passes, and eventually they withdraw or stop replying — weeks gone, the search back at zero.
- Returned but unusable. A three-line report that engages with none of the methods cannot support a decision, and from your side it looks like nothing arrived.
A narrow topic, or a submission naming no candidates of its own, makes that search longer — naming reviewers properly is one of the few levers you control.
"At least two independent expert reviewers" is the promise being kept during the silence
Our stated position is that at least two independent expert reviewers are sought for each research manuscript, and that the handling editor decides. Read the verb: sought, not guaranteed. No journal can guarantee that people it does not employ will agree and finish.
So the wait is the promise. A journal can always decide faster by asking one reviewer instead of two, or by having an editor read the paper alone and calling it peer review. Speed bought that way is a subtraction, invisible in the acceptance letter.
Why we publish no average time to first decision — and why you should distrust a journal that advertises one
We publish no average or median time to first decision, and will not estimate one here, because the figure would be meaningless. One mean would have to cover a four-page case report and a multi-centre chart review — different reviewer pools, different demands, no common unit. It would also be a promise about other people's diaries, and reviewer availability is requested, not scheduled.
So when a journal advertises "first decision in seven days", the useful question is not whether they hit it. It is what has to be left out for the number to be true.
Double-blind review adds steps you cannot see from the author's side
Our review is double-blind: reviewers do not see the authors, and authors do not see the reviewers. That protection costs time before an invitation goes out.
Double-blind review only works if the file carries nothing that identifies you — names left in document properties, an acknowledgements section, self-citations written as "in our previous work". Anything left in has to be dealt with before a manuscript can circulate anonymously at any journal, and that is time passing while the status line says nothing new. Anonymising properly before you send removes a delay you own — one of the duties in the corresponding author's job.
Send this: a status enquiry that asks one specific question instead of "any update?"
A weak enquiry asks for reassurance, which is easy to send back unchecked. A strong one asks a factual question nobody can answer without opening the file. Three sentences; identifier and date in the subject line; no attachment.
Subject: Status enquiry — MS ID [12345], submitted [15 June 2026] — [Short Title]
Dear [Editorial Office / Handling Editor],
I am writing about manuscript [ID], "[Full Title]", submitted on [date].
Could you tell me whether the manuscript has been sent out to reviewers, and if it has not, which stage it is currently at?
I would be grateful for a brief reply.
Yours sincerely,
[Name], corresponding author
[Affiliation] | [Email] | [ORCID]
How to read the reply — four kinds of answer, and what each one actually tells you
Judge the reply on whether it names a stage and a next step.
| The reply | What it tells you | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| A stage and a next step — "with two reviewers since [date]; reports due [date]" | Healthy. Somebody opened your record to answer you | Wait the stated period; diarise the date and do nothing until it passes |
| "Still with reviewers, we will chase them" | Plausible. A stage, but no next step | Reply once, thanking them, and ask for a date you can put in a diary |
| Generic reassurance, no stage named — "your paper is progressing" | Uninformative. Politeness, or nobody checked | Ask once more, quoting your question. Treat a second non-answer as a warning about the journal, not your paper |
| Nothing at all, two weeks after a polite enquiry | A failure of basic administration | Send one further enquiry to the editorial office, marked as a second request, or withdraw using the template below |
Send this instead: a withdrawal email, and why withdrawing before acceptance costs you nothing
You can withdraw a manuscript that has not been accepted. Two published facts settle the money: submission is free, and the article processing charge becomes payable only if and when a manuscript is formally accepted after peer review. Before acceptance nothing has been incurred, so nothing can be owed; anything arising after acceptance is governed by Publication Charges and the Refund Policy.
To be plain about our own gaps: we publish no standalone withdrawal policy page — the position above follows from the charges policy.
Subject: Withdrawal of manuscript — MS ID [12345], submitted [15 June 2026]
Dear [Editorial Office / Handling Editor],
I am writing on [today's date], on behalf of all authors, to withdraw manuscript [ID], "[Full Title]", submitted on [date]. The manuscript has not been accepted for publication.
Please confirm in writing that: (1) the manuscript is withdrawn from the date of this email; (2) it will not be processed, reviewed or published further; and (3) no charge arises, the manuscript never having been accepted.
Please also confirm that any reviewers still holding it have been told.
Yours sincerely,
[Name], corresponding author, on behalf of all authors
[Affiliation] | [Email] | [ORCID]
The reply to that email is itself a test. A short written confirmation with no conditions attached is normal practice. An invoice, a "withdrawal fee", or a demand for payment to release the file is one of the clearest predatory signals an author can observe directly — a test you can run on any publisher, including this one. Do not send the paper elsewhere until that confirmation arrives: a manuscript is conventionally treated as under consideration at one journal until its withdrawal is acknowledged. If no acknowledgement comes, send the withdrawal once more to the journal's general editorial address, keep both dated emails, and state plainly in your next cover letter when you withdrew and that the journal did not reply.
What to do when no reply comes at all, and when an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief is the right route
Silence is an administrative failure. The remedy is a second specific enquiry, then withdrawal. There is nothing to appeal against, because no decision has been made.
A decision you believe is wrong is an editorial matter. Our appeals route sends it to the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. An appeal is strongest when it identifies a specific factual or procedural error in handling, rather than restating how much the work matters. If it came back rejected rather than going quiet, start with how to handle a rejection.
A polite, specific enquiry is ordinary editorial-office correspondence, and it is administrative rather than editorial. Our process is on the Peer Review page, and what is payable on Publication Charges and the Refund Policy. See also how long publication takes, suggesting reviewers, and the corresponding author's responsibilities.