What Should I Do in the Case of the Journal Editor Not Replying to My Several Emails Inquiring the Result of the Peer Review? Is It Appropriate to Withdraw My Research Paper Submission? An Educational Guide for PhD Scholars and Researchers

For many researchers, one of the most stressful moments in academic publishing comes after submission. You have done the literature review, designed the study, analyzed the data, revised the manuscript, and finally submitted it to a journal. Then silence begins. If you are asking, “What should I do in the case of the journal editor not replying to my several emails inquiring the result of the peer review? Is it appropriate to withdraw my research paper submission?” you are not overreacting. You are facing a common and emotionally draining part of the publication journey. Peer review remains central to research validation, yet it often moves slowly because editors must secure reviewers, manage conflicting reports, and coordinate decisions across a growing volume of submissions. Elsevier notes that review times vary by journal and that reviewer availability is one of the main reasons for delay. Nature’s own journal metrics also show that timelines can stretch substantially from submission to acceptance, especially once revision cycles begin. (www.elsevier.com)

This problem matters even more today because the research ecosystem is larger and more competitive than ever. A recent scholarly analysis observed that more than five million new scholarly articles are now published each year, which increases editorial load and reviewer burden across disciplines. At the same time, Elsevier’s large analysis of more than 2,300 journals found an average acceptance rate of 32%, reminding authors that publication is both selective and slow. That combination creates exactly the pressure many PhD scholars feel: limited time, uncertain outcomes, funding deadlines, graduation milestones, visa pressures, tenure clocks, and rising expectations for journal quality. (PMC)

For doctoral students and early-career academics, delayed editorial communication is rarely just an inconvenience. It can affect thesis submission plans, job applications, grant renewals, and mental well-being. It can also create a practical dilemma: should you keep waiting, or should you withdraw the paper and submit elsewhere? The answer is not always immediate, but it is usually manageable if you proceed carefully, ethically, and with documentary evidence. The key is to distinguish between a normal publishing delay and a genuinely problematic editorial silence. COPE states that authors can withdraw manuscripts up to the point of formal acceptance, but it also makes clear that withdrawal must not become a route to simultaneous submission or duplicate editorial consideration. APA, Springer, and Elsevier likewise prohibit concurrent submission to more than one publication at the same time. (Publication Ethics)

In other words, yes, withdrawal can be appropriate. However, it should be a last structured step, not an emotional reaction. Good publication practice means documenting your follow-ups, checking the journal’s official policy, using the correct escalation channel, giving a reasonable timeline for response, and only then requesting withdrawal clearly and professionally if the delay has become unreasonable. This article explains how to make that decision with confidence. It also shows you how to protect your publication ethics, your timeline, and your manuscript’s future prospects. If you are looking for research paper writing support, PhD thesis help, or trusted academic editing services before resubmitting to another journal, this guide will help you decide what to do next.

Why journal editors sometimes do not reply during peer review

Editorial silence does not always mean negligence. In many cases, it reflects bottlenecks inside the review system. Elsevier explains that peer review times differ widely and that reviewer availability often drives delays. Reviewers may decline invitations, respond late, or submit reports weeks after the deadline. In some cases, an editor may receive contradictory reviews and seek an additional opinion, which can push the manuscript back into “under review” status even after some reports are complete. (Elsevier Support)

Another reason is workload. Editors handle large numbers of submissions while also balancing research, teaching, administration, and editorial responsibilities. High-volume journals may triage many manuscripts at the desk stage, while specialized journals may struggle to find suitable reviewers. Nature’s journal metrics illustrate how editorial speed and total time to acceptance can differ sharply, even within elite publishing environments. A fast first editorial decision does not guarantee a fast final outcome. (Nature)

There is also a structural burden on the wider publishing system. Peer Review Week materials and related scholarly commentary repeatedly highlight reviewer fatigue, redundancy, and pressure on volunteer reviewers. This means delays are often systemic rather than personal. That does not make them easier for authors, but it does mean silence should first be interpreted with discipline rather than panic. (hksmp.com)

When a delay is still normal and when it becomes a concern

A delay becomes concerning when it exceeds the journal’s stated timeline without explanation, when multiple polite follow-ups go unanswered, or when the submission system shows no meaningful movement for an extended period. Some journals aim to communicate decisions within a few months, while others openly report median first-decision times that can vary greatly by field and editorial model. For example, Nature reports a median of 8 days to first editorial decision and 321 days from submission to acceptance for accepted manuscripts, while individual Springer journals report very different medians for first decision. This confirms that authors must judge silence against the norms of the target journal, not against a generic expectation. (Nature)

A reasonable rule is this: if the manuscript is still within the journal’s published review window, wait patiently. If the paper has gone well beyond that window and you have already sent two or three professional follow-up emails over several weeks, concern becomes justified. At that point, you should move from ordinary follow-up to formal documentation and escalation.

What you should do first before thinking about withdrawal

Before deciding to withdraw, take five disciplined steps.

First, check the submission portal carefully. Many answers are already visible there. Terms such as “reviewers invited,” “required reviews completed,” or “under editor evaluation” can signal where the manuscript is stuck. Elsevier explicitly explains that status changes may reflect new reviewer invitations or additional review requests. (Elsevier Support)

Second, review the journal’s author guidelines and support pages. Some publishers provide formal withdrawal procedures, dedicated support desks, or escalation channels. Springer Nature, for example, directs authors to use the submission system or support route for withdrawal-related questions, while JMIR instructs authors to contact the editor and state the rationale before formal withdrawal. (Springer Nature Support)

Third, verify whether you contacted the correct person. A handling editor, editorial office, journal manager, or publisher helpdesk may respond more quickly than a generic editor email.

Fourth, gather documentation. Save submission confirmations, status screenshots, and all email correspondence. If you later request withdrawal, this record protects you.

Fifth, decide your own deadline. If the manuscript is tied to graduation, promotion, grant reporting, or thesis submission, define the latest date by which continued waiting is no longer practical.

If your manuscript needs stronger language, structure, or journal alignment before a new submission, ContentXprtz also supports authors through academic editing services and research publication assistance tailored to each stage of the publishing process.

How many follow-up emails are appropriate?

Most authors should avoid emailing too often. Frequent messages rarely accelerate peer review and may frustrate the editorial office. A better approach is to send one polite inquiry after the journal’s average review window has passed, then a second message around two to three weeks later if there is no reply, and a third message only if the silence continues and your timeline requires action.

Each message should be short, professional, and evidence-based. Include the manuscript title, ID, submission date, and a neutral request for a status update. Do not accuse the editor of negligence. Do not threaten immediate withdrawal in the first inquiry. Instead, signal your concern calmly.

A practical email strategy that protects your position

Use a staged approach.

Your first email should ask for an update.

Your second email should mention that you are following up because the manuscript appears to be beyond the journal’s usual review period.

Your third email should state that, unless you receive confirmation or a timeline within a defined number of business days, you may need to consider withdrawing the submission for time-sensitive academic reasons.

This final step matters because it creates a clear paper trail. If you later withdraw, you can show that you acted transparently and gave the journal a fair chance to respond.

Is it appropriate to withdraw my research paper submission?

Yes, it can be appropriate to withdraw your submission if the editorial delay has become unreasonable and the journal remains unresponsive. COPE’s position is clear that authors can withdraw manuscripts before formal acceptance, although the process should be confirmed by the corresponding author and must not be used to support unethical simultaneous submission. COPE also notes that misuse of withdrawal can raise ethical problems if the manuscript is already deeply engaged in editorial processing or if authors try to place it elsewhere before withdrawal is acknowledged. (Publication Ethics)

So the ethical issue is not withdrawal itself. The ethical issue is how you withdraw and what you do next. If you withdraw clearly, wait for acknowledgment as far as reasonably possible, and do not submit the paper elsewhere while it is still officially under consideration, you remain on solid ground. APA and Springer policies reinforce the same principle by prohibiting concurrent consideration at more than one journal. (APA)

When withdrawal is justified

Withdrawal is usually justified in the following situations:

• The review period has gone far beyond the journal’s stated or field-normal timeline.
• Multiple professional follow-ups have received no reply.
• You face a genuine deadline linked to thesis defense, graduation, promotion, funding, or compliance.
• The journal provides no transparent status update.
• The editorial office cannot confirm whether the paper is still active in review.

In these cases, a formal withdrawal request is reasonable, professional, and often necessary.

When you should not withdraw immediately

You should not withdraw immediately if the paper is still inside the expected review window, if the editor has replied with a realistic timeline, or if the system shows active progress. You should also avoid withdrawing in anger after a short delay, because a premature withdrawal can waste months and may force you to start the process again from zero elsewhere.

How to withdraw a manuscript professionally

A withdrawal request should be concise, respectful, and unambiguous. It should include the manuscript title, ID, submission date, and a clear statement that you wish to withdraw the manuscript from consideration due to the prolonged lack of communication. Ask for written confirmation that the manuscript has been withdrawn from the editorial system.

You should send the request to the editor, the editorial office, and where possible the publisher’s support desk. That reduces the chance of the message being missed.

A professional withdrawal email normally includes four parts: identification, history of contact, reason for withdrawal, and request for confirmation.

Here is a model structure you can adapt:

Subject: Withdrawal Request for Manuscript [ID]

Dear [Editor Name / Editorial Office],

I am writing regarding my manuscript titled “[Title],” submitted on [date] under manuscript ID [ID]. I previously sent follow-up messages on [dates] to request an update on the peer review process but have not yet received a response. Given the prolonged delay and my current academic timeline, I respectfully request withdrawal of this manuscript from consideration at your journal.

Please confirm in writing that the manuscript has been withdrawn from the editorial system and is no longer under consideration.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
[Name]
[Affiliation]

Should you submit elsewhere before receiving withdrawal confirmation?

In most cases, no. You should not submit the manuscript to another journal until the original journal has confirmed withdrawal or until you have exhausted all reasonable official channels and can document a strong basis for concluding the manuscript is no longer being processed. Elsevier educational materials, APA policy, and Springer author guidelines all reinforce that a manuscript must not be under consideration elsewhere at the same time. (Elsevier Researcher Academy)

This is the single most important ethical safeguard in the entire process. Even if you feel the journal behaved poorly, you should protect yourself from a dual-submission allegation.

What to do after withdrawal

Once the manuscript is formally withdrawn, do not rush into the next submission blindly. Review what likely happened. Was the journal a mismatch in scope? Did the field typically have long review cycles? Was the title, abstract, or methods section not well aligned with the journal’s audience? Did the paper need stronger language polishing or formatting before submission?

This is where professional support can save time. Before resubmitting, many authors benefit from research paper writing support, PhD and academic services, or specialist student writing services to improve journal fit, reviewer readiness, and response strategy.

Frequently asked questions every author should understand

How long should I wait before worrying that the journal editor is not replying?

A delay only becomes meaningful when you compare it with the journal’s own published timelines, the field’s publishing norms, and the actual status shown in the submission system. Many authors make the mistake of assuming that six or eight weeks is automatically a problem. In reality, some journals take only a few weeks to issue a first editorial decision, while others can take several months before peer review stabilizes. Nature’s metrics and individual Springer journal metrics show how much these timelines vary. Therefore, the first question is not “How long have I waited?” but “How long does this journal usually take?” (Nature)

A practical benchmark is this. If the journal’s normal first-decision or review timeline has not yet passed, continue waiting and avoid repeated emails. If that timeline has passed and your status has not changed, send one professional follow-up. If another two to three weeks pass without a response, send a second. If there is still no reply after a third carefully worded email, then you should begin considering escalation or withdrawal. The seriousness of the delay also depends on whether the system shows active movement. “Reviewers invited” is different from six months of complete silence with no status updates at all.

What matters most is documentation and tone. Do not become adversarial too early. Be precise, patient, and respectful. Editors are more likely to help authors who communicate professionally. However, patience does not mean passivity. If the delay threatens graduation or funding, you are entitled to seek clarity and, if necessary, request withdrawal.

Does non-response from an editor mean my manuscript has been rejected?

Not necessarily. Editorial silence is frustrating, but it does not automatically signal rejection. In many cases, the journal may still be trying to secure reviewers, waiting for overdue reports, or evaluating conflicting recommendations. Elsevier specifically notes that reviewer availability strongly affects timelines and that a manuscript can remain under review longer if additional opinions are requested. (Elsevier Support)

Many authors interpret silence emotionally because the publication process is deeply personal. A manuscript often represents years of work, especially for PhD scholars. Yet editorial delay is usually an operational issue, not a coded judgment on manuscript quality. Journals often handle hundreds or thousands of submissions, and communication quality varies widely. Some editorial offices are very responsive. Others only reply once there is a concrete status update.

That said, prolonged silence is still a problem. It may not equal rejection, but it may indicate poor editorial management. If your paper sits in limbo for months without updates and without replies to multiple professional inquiries, you should stop trying to “decode” the silence and start managing it as a publication risk. That means documenting all communication, checking the journal’s policies, and preparing for escalation or withdrawal if needed.

Is it ethical to withdraw a paper because the review process is taking too long?

Yes, withdrawing because of prolonged editorial delay can be ethical, provided you do it transparently and do not submit the manuscript elsewhere while it remains under active consideration. COPE states that authors may withdraw a manuscript before formal acceptance, but the process must be clear and must not be used to support duplicate or simultaneous submission. (Publication Ethics)

This distinction matters. Ethical withdrawal is not impulsive. It happens after reasonable waiting, documented follow-up, and a formal written request. Unethical behavior begins when an author treats silence as permission to submit elsewhere without confirming withdrawal, or when the same manuscript is knowingly under review in two places at once. APA, Springer, and Elsevier all prohibit concurrent submission, so protecting yourself from that scenario should be your first priority. (APA)

In practice, the best way to stay ethical is to act with evidence and restraint. Explain the history of communication, give the journal a final chance to respond, request written confirmation, and wait for that confirmation whenever possible. If the journal remains silent, keep a complete record of your efforts. That record demonstrates good faith and can become important if questions arise later.

Who should I contact if the handling editor does not reply?

Start with the handling editor, but do not stop there. If there is no response, contact the editorial office, journal administrator, publisher helpdesk, or support portal listed on the journal’s website. Many authors make the mistake of sending all messages only to one editor, even though the actual operational control may sit with an editorial assistant or central publisher support team.

Publisher support pages can be particularly useful. Springer Nature and other large publishers often provide dedicated routes for manuscript status and withdrawal-related queries. If a publisher’s support system exists, use it. Support staff can sometimes see whether the manuscript is still active, whether reviewer invitations are pending, or whether the handling editor needs prompting. (Springer Nature Support)

When escalating, stay professional. Do not frame the message as a complaint unless the situation genuinely requires it. Instead, state that you are trying to confirm the current status because previous messages have gone unanswered. Mention your manuscript ID, title, submission date, and prior contact attempts. This approach is more effective than emotional language because it gives the office something actionable to review.

What if the journal system still shows “under review” for months?

A long “under review” status is common, but the meaning depends on the publisher platform and journal workflow. Elsevier notes that “under review” can persist or even reappear when additional reviewers are invited or when the editor seeks further assessment after initial reviews are completed. That means the label itself does not tell you whether progress is happening. (Elsevier Support)

The right response is to interpret the status in context. If the status has stayed the same for months but the review period is still within the journal’s normal window, wait. If it is far beyond the journal’s timeline and your follow-up emails are unanswered, then the “under review” label stops being reassuring. At that point, it may simply indicate that the manuscript is trapped in an unresolved workflow.

For authors, the practical lesson is simple. Do not rely on a single status label. Combine it with published timelines, your communication record, and your own deadline pressures. If the journal cannot explain the delay within a reasonable period, the status label should not prevent you from considering withdrawal. It is the absence of accountable communication, not the wording of the portal, that becomes the decisive issue.

Can I send a final deadline to the journal before withdrawing?

Yes, and in many cases you should. A final deadline email is not rude if it is written professionally. In fact, it can be the clearest and fairest way to close the loop. The message should state that, because prior inquiries have not been answered and your academic timeline requires clarity, you would appreciate a response or confirmation of active review within a specified number of business days. If no update can be provided, say that you may need to withdraw the manuscript from consideration.

This type of message is useful for two reasons. First, it signals that your concern is procedural, not emotional. Second, it creates documentary evidence that you offered the journal a reasonable opportunity to respond before taking further action. That strengthens your position if you later need to explain the withdrawal to co-authors, supervisors, or another journal.

However, the deadline must be reasonable. Five to ten business days is usually more appropriate than forty-eight hours. The tone must remain respectful. You are not “ordering” the journal to respond. You are informing the office of a necessary academic decision point. That distinction helps preserve professionalism and minimizes the chance of misunderstanding.

Can I submit the same manuscript to another journal while waiting for a withdrawal response?

As a rule, no. Even if the first journal has been slow or unresponsive, you should not place the same manuscript under concurrent consideration elsewhere. APA policy explicitly prohibits concurrent submission, Springer guidelines state that a manuscript should not be under consideration elsewhere, and Elsevier’s ethics materials say submission is not permitted while a manuscript is under review at another publication. (APA)

This is the hardest part for frustrated authors because it feels unfair. Yet from an ethics perspective, the correct response to silence is not simultaneous submission. The correct response is documented follow-up, escalation, and formal withdrawal. If you submit elsewhere too early, you expose yourself to serious reputational and editorial risks. A dual-submission finding can lead to rejection, blacklisting, or institutional embarrassment.

If the delay is extreme and the journal remains totally silent, continue using official channels and keep records. In rare cases, authors may need advice from a supervisor, research office, or institutional publication ethics specialist. The goal is always the same: protect your manuscript and your integrity at the same time.

What should I improve before resubmitting to a new journal?

After withdrawal, your next step should not be immediate resubmission without reflection. A long delay may have been caused by editorial inefficiency, but it may also reveal a mismatch in journal scope, weak positioning, poor abstract framing, or insufficient manuscript polish. Before sending the paper elsewhere, review the title, abstract, contribution statement, methodology clarity, citation accuracy, formatting, and journal fit.

This is one reason many authors use professional editorial support between submissions. A manuscript that is scientifically strong may still face avoidable friction if the writing is unclear, the structure is inconsistent, or the paper does not align tightly with the new journal’s aims and scope. Targeted editing can improve readability, reviewer confidence, and the precision of the argument without changing the underlying science.

At ContentXprtz, authors often seek PhD and academic services, book author support, or specialist research paper writing support after a withdrawal because the interval between journals is the best moment to strengthen the paper strategically, not just cosmetically.

Should I tell my co-authors before withdrawing?

Absolutely. The corresponding author may handle communication, but withdrawal should be discussed with all co-authors, especially if the paper affects shared grant outputs, promotion files, student milestones, or intellectual property plans. Good authorship practice requires transparency in important editorial decisions. Springer and publisher policies generally assume that submission and publication decisions reflect co-author approval, so withdrawal should follow the same logic. (Springer)

Co-author consultation also protects relationships. One author may prefer to wait, while another may be facing a thesis deadline that makes further delay impossible. Bringing those realities into a documented discussion allows the team to decide collectively. It also reduces the risk that someone later claims the manuscript was withdrawn without consent.

In practical terms, send a short internal note summarizing the timeline, follow-up attempts, current status, and proposed next step. If possible, agree in writing before sending the formal withdrawal request. For multi-institutional teams, this is especially important because journal communication problems can easily become authorship communication problems if handled unilaterally.

Could a slow journal still be worth waiting for?

Yes. Sometimes the best decision is still to wait. A slow journal may still be the right journal if it has an excellent scope match, strong readership, high relevance for your field, and credible indexing. A shorter review timeline elsewhere does not always produce a better publication outcome. The real question is whether the delay is tolerable and whether the journal remains professionally communicative.

If the editor or office has replied, explained the delay, and provided a plausible timeline, many authors choose to stay. That can be wise, especially if the journal is highly suitable or prestigious for the manuscript. Elsevier’s data on acceptance rates and the broader selectivity of journals show that changing journals is not a guaranteed shortcut to publication. Moving the paper may simply restart a long process at another outlet. (Elsevier Author Services – Articles)

The decision should therefore balance three things: publication value, timeline risk, and communication quality. If the journal still offers clear value and the silence is temporary, waiting may be rational. If the value is modest and the communication is persistently poor, withdrawal becomes easier to justify. Good publishing decisions are rarely about emotion alone. They are about strategic fit, ethical process, and timing.

Authoritative resources that can help you further

For authors who want to verify policies directly, these resources are useful:

• COPE guidance on author withdrawal and manuscript removal: (Publication Ethics)
• APA publishing policies on concurrent submission: (APA)
• Elsevier submission status guidance and ethics on simultaneous submission: (Elsevier Support)
• Springer author guidance on manuscripts not being under consideration elsewhere: (Springer)
• Nature journal metrics for understanding editorial speed and publication timelines: (Nature)

Final thoughts: protect both your timeline and your ethics

If a journal editor is not replying to your several emails about peer review, do not panic and do not act impulsively. Start by checking the journal’s stated timelines, the manuscript status, and the publisher’s support channels. Send professional follow-ups. Document everything. Escalate carefully. If the silence becomes unreasonable and your academic timeline is at risk, it is appropriate to request withdrawal of your research paper submission. What is not appropriate is simultaneous submission to another journal before the first submission is clearly closed. (Publication Ethics)

The best publication decisions are patient, documented, and ethical. They protect your manuscript, your reputation, and your future options. If you want expert help with journal selection, manuscript refinement, publication strategy, or resubmission preparation, explore ContentXprtz’s writing and publishing services, PhD assistance services, and corporate and professional writing support.

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