My Manuscript Was “Submitted to Journal” for 3 Days and Then Became “Under Review” Without Going Through “With Editor” Status. How Is This Possible? A Clear Guide for PhD Scholars and Researchers

If you are a PhD scholar, early-career researcher, or academic author, you may have asked this exact question with genuine anxiety: My manuscript was “submitted to journal” for 3 days and then became “under review” without going through “with editor” status. How is this possible? At first, this status jump may look unusual. You may worry that the system skipped a necessary stage, that the editor did not screen your paper, or that something went wrong in the journal workflow. In most cases, however, this change is not a negative sign. It often reflects how different submission systems display editorial progress.

Journal submission platforms do not always show every internal step to authors. Some systems use simplified status labels. Some journals hide the “with editor” stage. Others move a manuscript from administrative screening directly to “under review” once an editor has selected reviewers or initiated peer review. Therefore, the absence of “with editor” does not automatically mean your paper bypassed editorial evaluation.

For researchers, this uncertainty feels stressful because publication timelines affect degrees, promotions, funding, visa deadlines, supervisor expectations, and institutional performance targets. In doctoral research, waiting can feel harder than writing. Scholars often spend years developing a thesis, converting chapters into journal articles, preparing references, formatting tables, checking plagiarism, and responding to supervisor feedback. Then, after submission, a few words in the tracking portal can create intense confusion.

This confusion also reflects the pressure of modern academic publishing. Global research output continues to rise, and journals receive large numbers of submissions. Publishers now rely on submission systems such as Editorial Manager, ScholarOne, and proprietary platforms to manage screening, editor assignment, reviewer invitations, peer review, revisions, and final decisions. Elsevier notes that Editorial Manager is used for many of its journals, while Springer Nature explains that manuscripts often go through initial quality checks covering authorship, ethics, competing interests, plagiarism, and completeness before full assessment. (www.elsevier.com)

So, when you see My manuscript was “submitted to journal” for 3 days and then became “under review” without going through “with editor” status. How is this possible?, the most useful response is not panic. The better response is interpretation. You need to understand journal workflow, platform terminology, editorial screening, and what “under review” may mean in different systems.

At ContentXprtz, we work with researchers, PhD scholars, students, universities, and professionals across 110+ countries. Since 2010, we have supported authors through academic editing, proofreading, dissertation refinement, manuscript preparation, research paper support, and publication assistance. This article explains the status change in practical terms, while also guiding you on how to strengthen your manuscript before and after submission.

Understanding the Meaning of “Submitted to Journal”

“Submitted to journal” usually means that your manuscript has entered the journal’s submission system. At this stage, the system has accepted your uploaded files, metadata, author information, cover letter, declarations, figures, tables, and supplementary material. However, it does not always mean that an academic editor has begun a detailed evaluation.

In many journals, the first stage after submission involves administrative checks. These checks may include formatting, file completeness, ethical declarations, conflict-of-interest statements, authorship information, funding details, data availability statements, plagiarism screening, and compliance with journal instructions. Springer Nature describes this early stage as an initial quality check that helps ensure the manuscript contains what editors and reviewers need for a fair assessment. (Springer Nature Support)

Elsevier’s submission guidance also emphasizes that manuscript requirements vary by journal and article type. Authors must therefore review the journal’s guide for authors before submission. A missing title page, incorrect reference style, incomplete declarations, or unsuitable figure format can delay the process even before peer review begins. (www.elsevier.com)

For this reason, “submitted to journal” should be seen as a gateway status. Your paper has arrived, but the journal may still be checking whether it can move forward. If everything is complete and the topic appears relevant, the manuscript may proceed quickly.

This is why the question My manuscript was “submitted to journal” for 3 days and then became “under review” without going through “with editor” status. How is this possible? is common. A three-day transition can happen when the administrative team works quickly, the paper fits the journal scope, and the editor or editorial office moves the manuscript directly into the next visible stage.

What “With Editor” Usually Means

“With editor” usually means that the manuscript has reached an editor, associate editor, handling editor, or editorial board member. This person may assess scope, novelty, methodology, ethical compliance, contribution, and suitability for peer review.

However, not every platform displays this stage. In some journals, authors see “submitted to journal” until the editor acts. Then the next visible label becomes “under review.” In other systems, “with editor” appears only when the manuscript sits with the editor for a certain period. Some journals use internal editor assignment steps that authors never see.

This is important because authors often assume that every manuscript must visibly pass through the same status sequence:

Submitted to Journal
With Editor
Reviewer Invited
Under Review
Required Reviews Completed
Decision in Process
Decision

In reality, journals vary widely. Some platforms combine “with editor” and “under review.” Others use “under review” to mean editorial review, not external peer review. Some use it only after reviewers accept invitations. Taylor & Francis explains that authors can view article status in the submission system used for that journal, but each journal’s platform and instructions may differ. (Author Services)

Therefore, if your paper skipped “with editor,” it does not necessarily mean that no editor saw it. It may mean that the platform did not display that internal step.

Why a Manuscript Can Move Directly from “Submitted to Journal” to “Under Review”

The simplest answer is this: your journal’s submission system may not show every internal stage. The editor or editorial office may have already completed the initial screening and moved the manuscript forward. In many cases, “under review” indicates that the paper is now being assessed either by an editor, invited reviewers, or external peer reviewers.

Emerald Publishing explains that if a submitted paper fits the aims and scope of the journal, the editor will send it out for review. Emerald also describes peer review as a process where the editor may reject a paper if it does not meet editorial objectives or select reviewers to evaluate it. (Emerald Publishing)

This means a quick move to “under review” can be encouraging. It may suggest that your manuscript passed the first administrative and scope checks. However, it does not guarantee acceptance. It simply means the manuscript has advanced to a more serious evaluation stage.

A direct status change can happen for several reasons. First, the journal may use automated routing. Second, the editor may have acted quickly. Third, reviewers may already be available in the journal database. Fourth, the system may label both editorial screening and peer review as “under review.” Fifth, the “with editor” stage may occur internally but remain invisible to authors.

So, when you ask My manuscript was “submitted to journal” for 3 days and then became “under review” without going through “with editor” status. How is this possible?, the answer is usually workflow design, not error.

Common Reasons Behind This Status Jump

A manuscript may skip the visible “with editor” stage when the journal uses a streamlined workflow. Some publishers configure their systems to reduce the number of statuses shown to authors. They may believe that fewer labels reduce confusion. Ironically, authors often feel more confused because they cannot see what happened behind the scenes.

Another reason is rapid editorial triage. If the journal has an efficient editorial office, the manuscript may pass technical checks within one to three days. The editor may then decide quickly that the paper deserves peer review. This situation often occurs when the topic fits the journal scope and the submission package is complete.

A third reason involves automated reviewer invitation workflows. Some systems allow editors to select reviewers quickly from databases. Once reviewer invitations go out, the system may show “under review.” However, in some journals, “under review” can appear before reviewers accept. Therefore, you should avoid assuming that peer review has fully started.

A fourth reason is platform-specific terminology. Editorial Manager, ScholarOne, Springer Nature systems, and publisher portals may use different status labels. Elsevier notes that corresponding authors can track submission status in Editorial Manager and may see status terms depending on journal policy. (Elsevier Support)

A fifth reason is internal editor assignment. The manuscript may have gone to an editor, but the author dashboard may not show that status. Many editorial actions happen within the journal office without being visible to authors.

Does “Under Review” Always Mean External Peer Review?

Not always. This is one of the most misunderstood points in academic publishing. “Under review” may mean different things depending on the journal and platform.

In some journals, “under review” means that external reviewers have accepted the invitation and are evaluating your manuscript. In other journals, it means that reviewer invitations have been sent. In some systems, it may even mean that the editor is conducting an internal assessment before deciding whether to invite reviewers.

Taylor & Francis notes that once a paper passes initial editorial assessment, it will be sent out for peer review. This indicates that peer review usually follows editorial screening, but the status label shown to authors depends on the submission system. (Author Services)

For authors, the practical lesson is clear. Do not overinterpret one status label. Instead, watch the timeline. If “under review” remains for several weeks, reviewers may be evaluating the paper. If it changes quickly to “decision in process,” the editor may have made an early decision. If it returns to “with editor,” the journal may be seeking reviewers or processing reviewer responses.

Is This a Good Sign or a Bad Sign?

A quick movement from “submitted to journal” to “under review” is generally neutral to mildly positive. It suggests that your manuscript was not immediately rejected during the first visible stage. It may also mean that the journal found the submission complete enough to proceed.

However, it is not a promise of acceptance. Journals may still reject a manuscript after peer review, after editorial review, or after reviewer invitations fail. Emerald states that editors may reject a submission if it does not meet editorial objectives, select reviewers, receive recommendations, and then make a decision based on those recommendations. (Emerald Publishing)

Therefore, the status should encourage patience, not overconfidence. A manuscript can pass administrative checks and still receive major revisions or rejection. At the same time, reaching “under review” means your paper has moved beyond the earliest submission stage.

For PhD scholars, this is a useful psychological shift. Instead of asking, “Did something go wrong?” ask, “What should I prepare for next?” You may soon need to respond to reviewer comments, revise arguments, clarify methods, improve language, or update references.

What Should You Do Now?

Once your manuscript shows “under review,” the best action is usually to wait. Avoid contacting the editor too soon. A three-day status change does not require intervention. Most journals handle hundreds or thousands of manuscripts, and unnecessary emails can slow communication.

However, you should use this waiting period wisely. Keep your data files organized. Prepare a response-to-reviewer template. Recheck your references. Review your methodology section. Make sure all co-authors are available for revision discussions. Also, prepare emotionally for different outcomes.

You can also use professional academic editing services if you plan to submit related manuscripts, thesis chapters, conference papers, or revised versions. Strong editing before submission reduces preventable delays.

If you are converting a dissertation into articles, structured PhD thesis help can support chapter restructuring, journal targeting, argument sharpening, and publication readiness.

Students preparing academic assignments, research proposals, or early-stage manuscripts can also explore student academic writing support. For scholars developing book manuscripts, book authors writing services can help refine structure, voice, and publication positioning. Professionals and institutions may benefit from corporate writing services for reports, white papers, thought leadership, and research-based content.

How Editorial Systems Differ Across Publishers

Different publishers use different workflows. Elsevier’s Editorial Manager, Springer Nature’s submission systems, ScholarOne, and other portals may present statuses in different ways. Some journals provide detailed progress indicators. Others provide only broad stages.

Springer Nature explains that authors can track submitted articles through their profile and view steps that show whether action is required. However, this does not mean every internal editorial action appears in the same way across every journal. (Springer Nature Support)

Emerald notes that authors can check their paper status from the Author Dashboard in ScholarOne, and some Emerald support materials mention average review and decision timelines. Yet timelines still vary by journal, reviewer availability, topic complexity, and revision rounds. (Emerald Customer Support)

APA also provides manuscript preparation guidance because well-prepared submissions improve clarity and reduce avoidable problems. APA reminds authors to follow journal-specific instructions when preparing manuscripts. (American Psychological Association)

The key point is simple. Submission status labels are not universal academic laws. They are platform signals. You should read them with caution.

Practical Example: What May Have Happened in Your Case

Let us imagine a PhD scholar submits a manuscript on Monday. The status shows “submitted to journal.” On Tuesday, the editorial assistant checks the files. The manuscript includes title page, anonymized document, ethics statement, funding declaration, figures, tables, references, highlights, and cover letter. No file is missing.

On Wednesday, the editor reviews the title, abstract, scope, methods, and keywords. The paper fits the journal. The editor selects three reviewers from the database. The system sends invitations. On Thursday, the author dashboard changes to “under review.”

In this example, the paper did go through editorial screening. It simply did not show “with editor” to the author. This is one common explanation for My manuscript was “submitted to journal” for 3 days and then became “under review” without going through “with editor” status. How is this possible?

Another example may be different. The journal may use “under review” for internal editorial review. In that case, external reviewers may not yet have accepted. The editor may still be deciding. This is why status labels should be interpreted carefully.

When Should You Contact the Journal?

You usually do not need to contact the journal after only a few days. Most journals expect authors to wait during review. Contacting too early rarely helps.

A polite inquiry may be reasonable if the manuscript remains unchanged for an unusually long time compared with the journal’s stated timeline. For example, if a journal says first decisions usually take around 60 days and your manuscript has stayed in one status for several months, you may send a concise message to the editorial office. Emerald support materials mention that average timelines vary and that authors can check status through the dashboard. (Emerald Customer Support)

Your inquiry should be professional. Avoid sounding impatient. Mention the manuscript title, manuscript ID, submission date, and current status. Ask whether any action is required from your side. Do not ask reviewers to hurry. Do not demand a decision. Editors appreciate clear and respectful communication.

How to Reduce Anxiety During the Review Period

Publication anxiety is real. PhD scholars often connect manuscript outcomes with self-worth, graduation timelines, or career progress. Yet peer review evaluates a paper, not your identity as a researcher.

You can reduce anxiety by focusing on what you control. Work on your next manuscript. Strengthen your thesis discussion chapter. Update your literature review. Prepare conference abstracts. Improve your academic profile. Build a journal tracker with submission dates, statuses, reviewer comments, and revision deadlines.

Also, remember that rejection and revision are normal parts of publishing. Even strong manuscripts may need major revision. Peer review is not only a gatekeeping mechanism. It is also a developmental process that can improve argument quality, methodological clarity, and contribution.

Manuscript Preparation Checklist Before Submission

Before your next journal submission, review the following:

Scope fit: Does your paper clearly match the journal’s aims and readership?

Originality: Does the introduction explain the research gap?

Methodology: Are methods transparent, ethical, and reproducible?

Results: Are tables and figures clear, necessary, and correctly labelled?

Discussion: Does the paper explain theoretical and practical implications?

References: Are citations recent, relevant, and formatted correctly?

Language: Is the manuscript concise, coherent, and academically polished?

Ethics: Are consent, approval, conflict of interest, and funding details complete?

Cover letter: Does it explain contribution without exaggeration?

Submission files: Are all required documents uploaded correctly?

This preparation cannot guarantee acceptance. However, it can reduce desk rejection risks and prevent administrative delays.

Why Professional Academic Editing Matters Before Submission

Professional academic editing is not about changing your ideas. It is about helping your ideas reach readers clearly. Many manuscripts face delays because the contribution is hidden under unclear structure, long sentences, weak transitions, inconsistent terminology, or poor journal alignment.

A strong editor helps improve readability, logical flow, grammar, argument structure, citation consistency, and journal compliance. For non-native English researchers, editing can also reduce language barriers without compromising academic integrity.

Ethical editing respects the author’s intellectual ownership. It does not fabricate data, manipulate findings, create fake citations, or promise guaranteed acceptance. ContentXprtz follows an ethical academic support approach. We help scholars refine manuscripts, dissertations, thesis chapters, research papers, and publication documents while preserving academic authenticity.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. My manuscript was “submitted to journal” for 3 days and then became “under review” without going through “with editor” status. How is this possible?

This is possible because journal submission systems do not always show every internal editorial step. Your manuscript may have passed administrative checks, moved to an editor, and then entered review without the author dashboard displaying “with editor.” In many systems, “with editor” is an internal stage. The editor may still have reviewed the paper for scope, quality, ethics, completeness, and suitability. However, the platform may show only broader categories such as “submitted to journal” and “under review.”

Another possibility is that the journal uses “under review” to describe internal editorial assessment. In that case, the paper may not yet be with external reviewers. The editor may be checking whether the manuscript should proceed to peer review. Some journals use the same label for both editorial review and external peer review. Therefore, the wording can be misleading.

A quick status change is usually not bad. It may mean that your submission package was complete and the manuscript moved efficiently. It does not guarantee acceptance, but it suggests that the paper was not immediately stopped at the first visible stage. The best response is to wait patiently, monitor the dashboard, and prepare for possible reviewer comments. If the status remains unchanged far beyond the journal’s normal timeline, you can send a polite inquiry to the editorial office.

2. Does “under review” mean that reviewers have accepted my manuscript for peer review?

Not always. “Under review” can mean several things. In some journals, it means external reviewers have accepted invitations and started evaluating your manuscript. In other journals, it means reviewer invitations have been sent but not yet accepted. In some systems, it means the editor is reviewing the manuscript internally before deciding whether to send it out.

This variation happens because publishers use different submission platforms and status rules. The author dashboard gives you a simplified view. It does not always reveal whether reviewers have accepted, declined, submitted reports, or requested extensions. Therefore, authors should avoid reading too much into one status label.

A good way to interpret “under review” is to treat it as progress. Your manuscript has moved beyond basic submission. It is now somewhere in the evaluation workflow. However, you should not assume that two or three reviewers are already reading it. Reviewer recruitment can take time, especially in narrow fields, interdisciplinary topics, or highly specialized methods.

For PhD scholars, this distinction matters because timelines can vary. If “under review” lasts only a few days and then changes to “decision in process,” the editor may have made an early decision. If it lasts several weeks, external peer review may be underway. Patience remains the most professional response.

3. Should I email the editor if the manuscript skipped “with editor”?

No, you usually should not email the editor only because the manuscript skipped “with editor.” This status pattern is common and often harmless. Editors and editorial offices manage many submissions. An email after three days may appear premature, especially when the manuscript has moved forward.

You should contact the journal only when there is a clear reason. For example, you may write if the system asks for action but no action button appears. You may also contact the journal if you uploaded the wrong file, forgot a required declaration, noticed a serious error, or need to update author information. A status jump from “submitted to journal” to “under review” is not, by itself, a problem.

If you eventually need to inquire, keep your message brief. Include the manuscript ID, title, submission date, and current status. Ask whether any action is required from your side. Avoid emotional language. Do not ask for reviewer identities or pressure the editor for a decision.

A professional tone protects your reputation. Academic publishing depends on respectful communication. Editors understand that authors feel anxious. However, they also appreciate patience, clarity, and courtesy. In most cases, your best action is to wait and prepare for the next stage.

4. Is a fast move to “under review” a sign that my paper is strong?

A fast move to “under review” can be a positive operational sign, but it is not proof that the paper is strong enough for acceptance. It may show that your manuscript passed basic checks and appears suitable for evaluation. It may also show that the journal’s editorial office works efficiently.

However, peer review examines deeper issues. Reviewers may assess originality, research design, theoretical contribution, statistical validity, data interpretation, writing quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal audience. A paper can move quickly into review and still receive major revisions or rejection.

That said, quick progress often feels encouraging. It usually means the manuscript was not immediately desk rejected at the first visible stage. For authors, this is a meaningful step. Many manuscripts never reach external review because they fall outside journal scope, lack novelty, or fail to meet basic formatting requirements.

Use this stage wisely. Do not celebrate too early, but do not panic either. Review your manuscript again. Think about likely reviewer questions. Prepare to defend your method, clarify your contribution, and strengthen your discussion. If the paper returns with revision requests, treat them as an opportunity to improve the work.

5. How long does peer review usually take after “under review”?

Peer review timelines vary widely. Some journals provide first decisions within a few weeks. Others take several months. The timeline depends on the journal’s workflow, editor availability, reviewer availability, topic complexity, manuscript quality, and number of revision rounds.

Reviewer recruitment often causes delays. Editors may invite several reviewers before enough agree. Some reviewers decline because of workload, conflicts of interest, or lack of expertise. Others accept but need more time. Specialized manuscripts may take longer because fewer experts can evaluate them.

Emerald support materials mention that papers may be out for review for several weeks and that decision timelines can vary by article and review process. (Emerald Customer Support) Springer journal guidance also notes that decision timing may fluctuate based on article length, reviewer availability, topic narrowness, and depth of review needed. (Springer)

As a practical rule, check the journal website for average review times. Many journals publish metrics such as time to first decision or time to acceptance. If your manuscript exceeds the stated timeline by a large margin, you may send a polite inquiry. Until then, focus on productive academic work.

6. Can my manuscript still be desk rejected after it shows “under review”?

Yes, it can. In some systems, “under review” may include editorial review rather than external peer review. If the editor later decides that the manuscript does not fit the journal, lacks sufficient contribution, or has major methodological weaknesses, the paper may receive a desk rejection.

Even after external review begins, rejection remains possible. Reviewers may identify serious issues in theory, design, analysis, literature positioning, ethics, or writing clarity. The editor then considers reviewer recommendations and makes the final decision. Emerald describes the editor’s role as considering reviewer recommendations before deciding whether to accept, reject, or request revisions. (Emerald Publishing)

A desk rejection after “under review” can feel confusing, but it does not always mean the system was wrong. It may mean the journal used broad status labels. It may also mean reviewers declined, and the editor reassessed the manuscript internally.

If rejection happens, read the decision carefully. Identify whether the issue was scope, novelty, methods, writing, contribution, or fit. Then revise strategically before submitting elsewhere. Do not rush the same manuscript to another journal without addressing the core problem. A thoughtful revision improves your next chance.

7. What should I prepare while waiting for reviewer comments?

While waiting, prepare your revision workflow. Create a folder with the submitted manuscript, clean version, tracked-change version, figures, tables, data files, ethical approvals, and supplementary materials. This organization saves time when reviewer comments arrive.

You can also create a response letter template. A strong response letter usually includes a polite opening, thanks to the editor and reviewers, a summary of major changes, and point-by-point responses. Each response should explain what changed, where it changed, and why. If you disagree with a reviewer, respond respectfully with evidence.

You should also revisit your literature review. New papers may appear during review. If your revision takes months, updated references can strengthen your work. Check whether recent studies support your argument, challenge your findings, or improve your theoretical framing.

Finally, prepare emotionally. Reviewer comments can feel harsh, especially after years of doctoral effort. Read them once, take a break, and return with a strategic mindset. Most comments aim to improve clarity, rigor, and contribution. Professional research paper writing support can help authors organize revisions ethically and effectively.

8. How can I avoid delays before submitting my next manuscript?

You can reduce delays by preparing a complete and journal-specific submission. Start with scope fit. Read the journal aims, recent articles, article types, word limits, reference style, open access policies, data-sharing requirements, and ethical declarations. A strong fit reduces the risk of early rejection.

Next, prepare all files carefully. Many journals require a main manuscript, title page, anonymized version, cover letter, highlights, graphical abstract, supplementary files, conflict-of-interest statement, funding statement, author contribution statement, and ethics approval details. Missing files can delay administrative checks.

Then, polish the writing. Editors and reviewers focus on research quality, but unclear language can hide strong ideas. Shorter sentences, clear transitions, precise terminology, and logical structure improve readability. APA manuscript guidance also encourages authors to follow journal-specific instructions when preparing submissions. (American Psychological Association)

Finally, check references and citations. Inaccurate references reduce trust. Use reference software, but verify every entry manually. Many authors lose time because of preventable formatting problems. A careful pre-submission review can help your manuscript move smoothly through early checks.

9. Can academic editing improve my chance of passing editorial screening?

Yes, ethical academic editing can improve the clarity and professionalism of your manuscript. It can help editors understand your contribution quickly. However, editing cannot guarantee acceptance. Journal decisions depend on originality, methods, evidence, scope fit, reviewer evaluation, and editorial priorities.

Academic editing helps most when the research is strong but the presentation needs refinement. For example, an editor can improve sentence clarity, remove repetition, strengthen transitions, align headings, check consistency, refine the abstract, and improve the cover letter. A subject-aware editor can also identify unclear claims, weak literature positioning, and missing implications.

For PhD scholars, editing can be especially valuable when converting thesis chapters into journal articles. A thesis chapter often contains more background than a journal article needs. It may also follow a structure that does not fit journal expectations. Professional support can help reshape the chapter into a focused, publishable manuscript.

At ContentXprtz, our approach respects academic integrity. We refine the author’s work rather than replacing the author’s thinking. We do not fabricate findings, invent citations, or promise guaranteed publication. Our goal is to help your ideas become clearer, stronger, and publication-ready.

10. What should I do if my manuscript receives major revisions after review?

First, do not panic. Major revisions are common in academic publishing. They mean the editor sees potential but needs substantial improvement before making a final decision. Many accepted papers pass through one or more major revision rounds.

Start by reading the decision letter carefully. Separate comments into categories: theory, literature, methods, results, discussion, writing, formatting, and references. Then create a revision plan. Address essential scientific concerns first. These may include research design, data interpretation, missing controls, unclear variables, or weak theoretical framing.

When writing the response letter, answer every comment. Use respectful language. Show exactly where changes were made. If you cannot make a requested change, explain why with evidence. Avoid defensive wording. Reviewers are more likely to support your revision when they see thoughtful engagement.

Also, update your manuscript cleanly. Use tracked changes if requested. Maintain consistency across abstract, introduction, methods, results, tables, discussion, and conclusion. A rushed revision can create new errors.

Professional revision support can help authors manage complex reviewer feedback. ContentXprtz assists scholars with response letters, language refinement, structure improvement, and journal-ready formatting while preserving the author’s intellectual ownership.

Key Takeaways for PhD Scholars and Academic Authors

The question My manuscript was “submitted to journal” for 3 days and then became “under review” without going through “with editor” status. How is this possible? has a practical answer. It is possible because journal systems vary. Some platforms do not display “with editor.” Some use “under review” for internal editorial review. Some show “under review” once reviewer invitations start. Others move manuscripts quickly when the submission is complete and suitable.

This status change is usually not a problem. It is often a normal part of journal workflow. However, it does not guarantee acceptance. Your manuscript still needs to pass editorial judgment, reviewer evaluation, and final decision-making.

The best response is patience, preparation, and professionalism. Monitor the dashboard. Avoid unnecessary emails. Prepare for reviewer comments. Keep your data and files organized. Continue writing and researching. Most importantly, treat the publication journey as a process of refinement rather than a single event.

Conclusion: Your Manuscript Status Is a Signal, Not a Verdict

A manuscript status can create anxiety, especially when you are waiting for a PhD milestone, promotion requirement, or publication outcome. Yet a jump from “submitted to journal” to “under review” without “with editor” is usually explainable. It often reflects platform settings, fast editorial screening, invisible internal steps, or broad status terminology.

For scholars, the deeper lesson is this: do not let dashboard wording control your confidence. Instead, focus on what strengthens your publication journey. Submit carefully. Follow journal guidelines. Write clearly. Support claims with evidence. Prepare ethical revisions. Seek expert help when needed.

ContentXprtz supports students, PhD scholars, researchers, universities, and professionals with academic editing, proofreading, manuscript refinement, dissertation support, research paper assistance, and publication guidance. Since 2010, we have helped authors across 110+ countries bring clarity, rigor, and confidence to their academic work.

Explore our PhD and academic services to prepare your manuscript, thesis, or research paper for the next stage of publication.

At ContentXprtz, we don’t just edit – we help your ideas reach their fullest potential.