With Editor Status: How Long Does It Usually Take?
With editor status how long is one of the most common questions authors ask after submitting a journal manuscript. The short answer is that there is no universal fixed duration. A paper may remain “With Editor” for a few days, several weeks, or occasionally longer, depending on the journal's workflow, editor availability, subject area, submission volume, screening requirements, and the difficulty of identifying suitable reviewers.
For authors, the difficult part is not only the waiting. It is the uncertainty. A doctoral researcher may be watching the status because a graduation milestone is approaching; an early-career author may need a decision for a funding application; a corresponding author may simply wonder whether the paper is moving at all. Status labels can feel highly meaningful, but they are usually administrative workflow labels rather than predictions of acceptance or rejection.
The most useful approach is to understand what “With Editor” actually means, compare your elapsed time with the journal's own published turnaround information, and contact the editorial office only when the wait has become meaningfully longer than expected. This guide explains that process without treating unofficial timelines as guarantees.
Quick Answer: With Editor Status How Long Should You Expect?
There is no single official number that applies to every journal. A practical expectation is that editorial handling can take anywhere from several days to a few weeks before the manuscript moves to peer review, receives a desk decision, or changes to another internal status. Some journals are faster; specialist or high-volume journals can take longer.
Elsevier describes “With Editor” as a state in which an editor has been assigned but has not yet taken an action that triggers another status. Springer Nature describes an “Editor assigned” stage after initial quality checks, when the editor assesses the submission and, if satisfied, selects peer reviewers. Wiley also notes that timing during review-related stages is influenced by factors such as reviewer availability. These descriptions show why an author should read the status as work in progress, not as a countdown with a guaranteed endpoint.
If your manuscript has been With Editor for only a week or two, that alone is usually not a reason to panic. If it has exceeded a journal's stated first-decision or editorial-handling time by a meaningful margin, a concise and courteous status enquiry is appropriate.
Key Takeaways
- “With Editor” normally means an editor has been assigned and the manuscript is in an editorial-handling stage.
- No universal publisher rule says the status must change within a specific number of days.
- Several days to a few weeks can be a realistic editorial-assessment window, but journal-specific data should take priority.
- The status can end in peer review, a desk rejection, a request for technical corrections, transfer, or another internal editorial step.
- A long With Editor period is not, by itself, evidence that the manuscript will be rejected.
- Check the journal website for first-decision or turnaround statistics before emailing the editorial office.
- When an enquiry is justified, send one brief message with the manuscript ID, title, submission date, and current status.
What This Page Covers
- What “With Editor” means in common journal workflows
- How long the status may reasonably last and why no fixed benchmark exists
- What the editor may be doing during this stage
- How to interpret status changes such as With Editor to Under Review
- Reasons a manuscript can remain with an editor longer than expected
- When and how to contact the journal professionally
- Practical examples for first submissions, revised papers, and delayed editorial handling
Table of Contents
Methodology and Academic Sources
This article is based on publisher guidance about manuscript tracking and editorial workflows, with emphasis on status meaning rather than unsupported predictions. Elsevier's submission and decision guidance explains the meaning of “With Editor.” Springer Nature's editorial process after submission outlines initial checks, editor assignment, peer review, and decision stages. Wiley's submission-status guidance shows that status labels and timing depend on workflow and reviewer availability. Taylor & Francis's peer-review process guide describes the editor's initial assessment before external review.
Journal interfaces, terminology, and turnaround times change. Therefore, the target journal's current author instructions and tracking system should always override generic examples. The time ranges below are practical interpretation aids, not publisher guarantees.
What Does “With Editor” Mean?
“With Editor” means the manuscript is currently assigned to editorial handling rather than waiting only in the author's account. In a typical workflow, the submission has passed at least some administrative checks and is now available to an editor who can assess whether it should proceed.
That editor may be the editor-in-chief, a handling editor, an associate editor, a section editor, or another editorial-board member. The exact role depends on the journal. Some systems assign papers automatically; others require a senior editor to choose the most appropriate handling editor based on subject expertise and workload.
The phrase is intentionally broad. It does not tell the author exactly what the editor is doing at that minute. The manuscript might be waiting in the editor's task list, undergoing a scope assessment, being checked for reporting or ethical issues, being compared with recently published work, or moving toward reviewer selection.
With Editor is not the same as Under Review
Authors often assume that “With Editor” means peer review has already started. That is not necessarily true. In many workflows, “Under Review” appears only after the editor decides the paper is suitable for external evaluation and reviewer invitations are sent or accepted. In other systems, “Under Review” is a broader label that can include some editorial activity. This is why two journals using different platforms can display different statuses for essentially similar work.
It is also not an acceptance signal
A manuscript reaching an editor is a normal stage, not a positive decision in itself. The editor still has to judge fit, novelty, relevance, methodological credibility, ethical compliance, reporting completeness, and whether the paper is developed enough to justify reviewer time. A strong manuscript can proceed quickly, but a well-written paper can still be desk rejected if it does not match the journal's aims and scope.
How Long Can a Manuscript Stay With Editor?
The most defensible answer is: long enough for the journal's editorial assessment, which may range from days to weeks and sometimes longer. A generic number should never replace journal-specific turnaround information.
| Elapsed time | Practical interpretation | Suggested author action |
|---|---|---|
| 1–7 days | Often consistent with normal assignment and initial editorial checks. | Usually no action; confirm that no technical request is waiting in your account. |
| 1–3 weeks | Can still be a normal handling period, especially for busy or specialist journals. | Check the journal's published first-decision or processing information. |
| 3–6 weeks | May reflect workload, reassignment, internal consultation, or reviewer-search preparation. | If the journal's stated timeline has been exceeded, consider one polite enquiry. |
| More than 6 weeks | Long enough to review the journal's expected timeline carefully; not automatically a bad sign. | A courteous status request is generally reasonable if no update or explanation has been provided. |
These ranges are practical heuristics, not universal publisher standards. A weekly journal in a fast-moving field may handle papers quickly, while a small specialist journal managed by academic editors may operate on a slower schedule. Holidays, conference seasons, teaching periods, and unusual submission spikes can also affect timing.
Use the journal's own metrics first
Many journal pages publish a median or average time to first decision. That number is more useful than online anecdotes because it reflects the journal's actual workflow. Even then, remember that “time to first decision” may combine desk rejections, peer-reviewed decisions, and different manuscript types. Your own submission may take more or less time than the median.
If the journal says its typical first decision takes 30 days and your manuscript has been With Editor for 12 days, there is little reason to infer a problem. If the journal advertises a 14-day first decision and the paper has remained unchanged for six weeks, an enquiry becomes much more reasonable.
What Is the Editor Doing During This Stage?
The editor is deciding what should happen next and whether external reviewer time should be invested in the manuscript. That decision can involve more work than authors can see from the tracking page.
1. Checking journal fit
The editor compares the manuscript with the journal's aims, scope, audience, article types, and recent publishing priorities. A technically competent study may still be unsuitable if the topic is too narrow, too far outside scope, or better aligned with another journal.
2. Assessing basic research and reporting quality
The editor may examine whether the research question is clear, the design appears appropriate, conclusions are proportionate to the evidence, tables and figures are interpretable, and the manuscript contains the information reviewers would need. This is not a full peer review, but it is a meaningful editorial filter.
3. Checking ethics and policy requirements
Depending on the field, the editor or editorial office may confirm ethics approval, consent statements, trial registration, conflicts of interest, funding information, data availability, author contributions, image integrity, or other policy requirements. Missing or inconsistent information can slow the transition to review.
4. Deciding whether to desk reject
Editors are responsible for protecting reviewer time. If the paper is clearly unsuitable, seriously underdeveloped, outside scope, or incompatible with journal policy, the editor may decide not to send it to external reviewers. A desk decision can be disappointing, but it also prevents authors from losing months in a review process with little chance of success.
5. Finding the right reviewers
If the manuscript passes initial assessment, the editor must identify reviewers with relevant expertise and without obvious conflicts of interest. In niche topics, interdisciplinary papers, or rapidly evolving fields, this can require several invitation rounds. Although some systems may change the author-visible status once invitations begin, others may continue to show an editorial status until a specific workflow event occurs.
What Common Status Changes Mean After With Editor
The next status usually reflects a workflow event, not a hidden evaluation score. Authors should focus on the sequence rather than trying to decode each label emotionally.
| Status change | What it may mean | What the author should do |
|---|---|---|
| With Editor → Under Review | The editor has moved the manuscript toward external peer review; reviewer activity may have started. | Wait unless the journal requests information. |
| With Editor → Decision in Process | An editorial decision is being prepared or approved. | Do not infer the outcome; wait for the decision letter. |
| With Editor → Revision Requested | The editor has asked for changes, either after editorial assessment or review. | Read the letter carefully and respond point by point. |
| Under Review → With Editor | Reports may have returned to the editor, or the paper may need further editorial handling. | Usually wait; the editor may be evaluating reports or seeking another review. |
| With Editor → Rejected | The editor has decided not to continue consideration. | Read the reasons, improve the manuscript where useful, and assess a better-fit journal. |
Labels such as “Required Reviews Complete,” “Reviews Completed,” “Editor Assigned,” “Awaiting Editor Decision,” or “Decision in Process” may appear on different platforms. The underlying logic is similar: systems expose selected milestones from a more complex internal workflow.
Why Can With Editor Status Take Longer Than Expected?
Delays are usually operational rather than predictive. The editor's workload and the manuscript's handling needs often matter more than whether the eventual decision will be positive or negative.
- High submission volume: popular journals may receive more manuscripts than editors can immediately assess.
- Editor workload: academic editors often balance journal duties with research, teaching, clinical work, administration, and travel.
- Reassignment: a manuscript may be transferred from one editor to another if expertise, workload, or conflicts make reassignment appropriate.
- Internal consultation: interdisciplinary, controversial, or borderline-scope papers may require discussion with another editor.
- Technical or ethics checks: unclear declarations, missing files, reporting issues, or integrity checks can add time.
- Reviewer search: finding available experts can be difficult, particularly in narrow fields or for manuscripts with unusual methods.
- Calendar effects: holidays, examination periods, large conferences, and institutional breaks can slow editorial activity.
None of these explanations can be confirmed simply by looking at the author dashboard. That is why status speculation is rarely productive. The more reliable indicators are the journal's published turnaround data, direct messages from the editorial office, and the actual decision letter.
When Should You Contact the Journal About With Editor Status?
Contact the journal when your manuscript has exceeded its expected timeline by a meaningful margin, not merely because the status has remained unchanged for a few days. A single professional enquiry is normal publishing communication; repeated requests every few days can create unnecessary administrative work.
Before sending an email, check four things
- Open the submission system and make sure no author action is pending.
- Check the journal's author guidelines, FAQ, or journal metrics for a typical first-decision time.
- Review your submission confirmation and any editorial-office emails for stated expectations.
- Confirm the manuscript ID, exact title, submission date, and current status.
A good status enquiry is short and factual. It does not accuse the editor of delay or ask whether the paper is likely to be accepted. It simply requests an update.
Example: “I am writing to enquire about manuscript CX-2026-0142, submitted on 3 May 2026 and currently showing With Editor. I appreciate the editorial team's time and would be grateful for any update on its progress when convenient.”
If you have a legitimate external deadline—such as a thesis submission, funding report, or job review—mention it briefly, but do not imply that the journal should compromise its editorial process.
Practical Examples: How Authors Should Read the Timeline
Example 1: With Editor for nine days after initial submission
A PhD scholar submits a manuscript to a mid-sized journal. The technical check is completed in two days, and the status changes to With Editor. Nine days later, nothing has changed. The journal reports a median first-decision time of about four weeks. The sensible action is to wait. The paper is still within the journal's stated window, and there is no evidence of a problem.
Example 2: With Editor for five weeks with no published timeline
An early-career researcher submits to a specialist journal managed by a small editorial board. After five weeks, the status remains With Editor and the journal does not publish decision-time statistics. A single courteous enquiry is reasonable. The author should avoid sending the manuscript elsewhere unless it has been formally withdrawn, because simultaneous submission to multiple journals is generally prohibited by journal policies.
Example 3: Under Review returns to With Editor
A paper spends six weeks Under Review, then returns to With Editor. The author worries that the manuscript has been rejected. That conclusion is premature. Reviewer reports may have arrived and the editor may be reading them, resolving conflicting recommendations, or deciding whether another review is necessary. The author should normally wait for the next status or decision letter.
Example 4: A revised manuscript is With Editor again
After major revision, a manuscript returns to the editor. The status remains With Editor for two weeks. The editor may be checking the response letter and revised manuscript before deciding whether to send the paper back to the original reviewers. A revision does not guarantee acceptance, so the author should ensure that every reviewer point has been addressed clearly and respectfully.
Author Checklist While Your Manuscript Is With Editor
The best use of this waiting period is preparation rather than status refreshing. You cannot control the editor's queue, but you can prepare for likely next steps.
- Save the submitted manuscript, figures, supplementary files, and cover letter in a clearly labelled folder.
- Keep the journal's author guidelines and formatting requirements available.
- Check email spam folders so an editorial request is not missed.
- Prepare a clean editable version of the manuscript in case a technical correction is requested.
- Review likely weaknesses in the discussion, limitations, references, and presentation.
- Do not make a new submission of the same paper to another journal while it remains under consideration.
- If a revision arrives, create a point-by-point response document before making changes randomly.
- Keep co-authors informed of major status changes and decision letters.
If language clarity, consistency, formatting, or response-to-reviewer presentation becomes a concern after the decision, ethical research paper editing support can help refine the manuscript without changing the authors' research decisions or promising an editorial outcome.
Common Mistakes Authors Make When Interpreting With Editor
The biggest mistake is treating a tracking label as a verdict. The dashboard shows workflow movement, not the editor's private opinion.
- Assuming a long wait means rejection: editorial workload can be slow even for papers that later enter review.
- Assuming a fast change means acceptance: rapid movement can also lead to a desk decision.
- Comparing different journals directly: one journal's With Editor may not represent the same internal steps as another's.
- Following forum anecdotes as rules: another author's timeline may involve a different article type, editor, reviewer pool, or system configuration.
- Emailing too early: an enquiry after only a few business days rarely adds useful information.
- Sending repeated messages: multiple follow-ups can burden the editorial office without accelerating a decision.
- Editing the submitted paper privately and expecting to replace it: once submitted, authors should follow journal instructions before changing files.
How Manuscript Quality Can Affect the Editorial Stage
Strong preparation cannot guarantee a faster decision, but it can reduce avoidable friction. Editors can assess a clean, complete, well-structured manuscript more efficiently than one with missing declarations, inconsistent formatting, unclear figures, weak language, or obvious guideline violations.
Before submission, authors should confirm that the title and abstract accurately represent the study, the manuscript fits the target journal, the methods are sufficiently described, tables and figures are readable, references are complete, ethical statements are included where required, and the cover letter explains relevance without exaggeration. For researchers writing in a second language, professional academic manuscript editing may help improve clarity before submission, but editorial assistance does not substitute for sound research or journal fit.
After submission, however, there is usually little value in repeatedly revising your private copy merely because the status has not changed. Wait for the editor's decision or request unless you discover a serious error that genuinely requires contacting the journal.
Summary: With Editor Status How Long?
With Editor can last from several days to several weeks, and there is no universal deadline that applies across journals. The status generally means an editor has been assigned and the manuscript is undergoing editorial handling before another workflow event changes the status.
Use the target journal's own first-decision data as your primary benchmark. A one- or two-week wait can be entirely normal. Longer waits can reflect editor workload, reassignment, internal consultation, policy checks, or reviewer-search difficulty. If the manuscript has clearly exceeded the journal's expected timeline, a brief and professional status enquiry is appropriate.
Most importantly, do not use the status to predict acceptance or rejection. Wait for the actual editorial communication, keep your submission files organised, and prepare to respond carefully if the journal requests revision.
Frequently Asked Questions
With editor status how long does it usually take?
There is no universal fixed duration. In many journals, a manuscript may remain With Editor for several days to a few weeks while an editor checks fit, quality, compliance, novelty, and whether reviewers should be invited. The journal's own median or average decision-time data, if published, is more useful than a generic benchmark. A longer stay does not by itself indicate rejection or acceptance.
What does With Editor mean in Editorial Manager?
In Editorial Manager, With Editor generally means an editor has been assigned and no later action has yet triggered another author-visible status. The editor may be conducting an initial assessment, checking scope and presentation, deciding whether to desk reject, identifying reviewers, or waiting for an internal editorial action. Exact workflows differ by journal.
Is With Editor a good sign?
It is a neutral process status, not a decision signal. It usually confirms that the submission has progressed to editorial handling, but the manuscript can still be desk rejected, sent for peer review, transferred, returned for technical corrections, or moved through another internal step. Authors should avoid treating a status label as a prediction of outcome.
Can a paper be rejected while it is With Editor?
Yes. Editors often assess journal fit, originality, methodological soundness, reporting quality, ethical requirements, and presentation before external review. If the paper is clearly unsuitable for the journal or has major problems that do not require reviewer input, an editor may issue a desk rejection while the manuscript is still in the editorial-assessment stage.
Why has my manuscript been With Editor for two weeks?
Two weeks can still fall within a normal editorial-handling period for many journals. The editor may have a high workload, be confirming scope, consulting another editor, checking files or ethics information, or searching for appropriate reviewers. Compare the elapsed time with any turnaround information on the journal website before contacting the editorial office.
What if With Editor lasts more than a month?
A month is long enough to justify checking the journal's stated first-decision or editorial timelines. If the manuscript has exceeded the journal's published expectation by a meaningful margin, a short and courteous status enquiry is reasonable. If the journal publishes no timeline, authors can still enquire politely after an unusually long period, especially when there is a genuine deadline.
Does With Editor mean reviewers have been invited?
Not necessarily. With Editor can occur before reviewer invitations. Some journals change the status to Under Review once reviewers are invited or accept, while others use broader labels that combine editorial and external-review activity. The submission system and journal workflow determine what the author sees.
Why did my status change from Under Review back to With Editor?
A return to With Editor can mean that reviewer reports have arrived and the editor is evaluating them, that the editor is deciding whether another reviewer is needed, or that the manuscript has moved to an internal decision step. Status labels are workflow indicators, so a change back is not automatically negative.
Should I email the editor about a long With Editor status?
Yes, when the manuscript has clearly exceeded the journal's published or typical timeline, or when a legitimate deadline makes an update important. Keep the email brief: include the manuscript ID, title, submission date, current status, and a polite request for an update. Avoid repeated messages within short intervals.
Can professional editing help while a paper is With Editor?
Editing cannot accelerate an editor's queue or influence a journal decision. However, if the editor requests a revision, professional academic editing can help authors improve clarity, language, consistency, formatting, and response-to-reviewer presentation while preserving the researcher's authorship and responsibility. Authors should follow the journal's policies on permitted editorial assistance.
Conclusion: Read the Status as a Process, Not a Prediction
Waiting for a journal decision can be stressful because authors have invested months or years in the research behind a manuscript. “With Editor” confirms that the paper is in editorial handling, but it does not reveal the final outcome. The fairest interpretation is procedural: the editor is responsible for deciding what should happen next.
Check the journal's own timeline, allow reasonable editorial time, and enquire only when the delay has become meaningfully longer than expected. If the next step is a revision, focus on the decision letter rather than the old status history. Address every point carefully, preserve a respectful tone, and make sure the revised manuscript is clear, consistent, and aligned with the journal's instructions.
Contentxprtz can support researchers with ethical manuscript editing and revision-readiness when language, structure, formatting, or response presentation needs attention. It cannot influence an editor's queue, guarantee peer review, or promise journal acceptance. At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.
