My Manuscript Was Submitted to a Journal for 3 Days and Then Became Under Review Without Going Through “With Editor” Status—How Is This Possible?
By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator
If you are wondering, “My manuscript was submitted to a journal for 3 days and then became under review without going through with editor status—how is this possible?”, the short answer is reassuring: this can be completely normal.
A journal’s online submission system does not necessarily display every editorial action that takes place behind the scenes. Your manuscript may have passed an initial technical check, been assigned to an editor, received a rapid preliminary assessment, and had reviewers invited without the author-facing dashboard ever displaying “With Editor” for a noticeable period.
This is particularly important because manuscript-status labels are not universal. Different journals, publishers, and submission platforms configure their workflows differently. Even within the same platform, individual journals may customize what authors see. Elsevier’s current guidance for Editorial Manager explicitly states that submissions can sometimes skip a phase or return to an earlier phase depending on editor actions, and that journals can customize the wording of status terms.
Therefore, moving from “Submitted to Journal” to “Under Review” within approximately three days does not automatically indicate a system error, nor does it mean that the editor failed to examine your manuscript.
In fact, it may indicate that preliminary processing happened efficiently.
However, it is equally important not to overinterpret the change. “Under Review” is encouraging because the manuscript has progressed, but it does not guarantee acceptance, positive reviewer comments, or even that all reviewers have already agreed to review the paper.
Understanding what the status actually represents can help you avoid unnecessary anxiety during what is often one of the most uncertain stages of academic publishing.
Quick Answer: Why Did My Manuscript Go Directly to Under Review?
Your manuscript can appear to move directly from “Submitted to Journal” to “Under Review” because the status visible to authors is only a simplified representation of the journal’s editorial workflow.
The manuscript may actually have passed through several internal steps during those three days:
- Submission received.
- Administrative or technical checks completed.
- Editor assigned internally.
- Editor conducted an initial suitability assessment.
- Reviewers were selected or invited.
- The system changed the author-facing status to “Under Review.”
The “With Editor” stage may therefore have occurred internally but lasted only a few hours, occurred between dashboard refreshes, or not been configured as a separate author-visible status.
For journals using Elsevier’s Editorial Manager, “With Editor” normally indicates that an editor has been assigned but has not yet performed an action that triggers another status. Once reviewers are invited, the status can become “Under Review.” Elsevier also states that an individual submission may skip a displayed phase depending on editorial actions.
So, three days is fast, but entirely possible.
The sensible response at this stage is usually to do nothing except monitor your submission and email. There is generally no reason to contact the journal merely because “With Editor” was not displayed.
Key Takeaways
- A missing “With Editor” status does not mean your manuscript bypassed editorial assessment.
- Submission systems show simplified author-facing statuses rather than every internal action.
- Some journals configure status labels differently even when using the same manuscript-management platform.
- Elsevier states that Editorial Manager submissions may skip particular status phases depending on editorial actions.
- “Under Review” generally indicates that the manuscript has progressed into the peer-review workflow, but the exact meaning depends on the journal and platform.
- In Editorial Manager, reviewers being invited can be sufficient for the manuscript to show “Under Review”; it does not necessarily mean completed reviewer reports are already underway.
- A change to “Under Review” after three days is not by itself a reason to contact the journal.
What This Page Covers
This guide explains:
- Why “With Editor” may never appear on your dashboard
- What probably happened during the first three days
- What “Under Review” actually means
- Whether the quick transition is a positive sign
- Whether your manuscript received a proper editorial assessment
- How manuscript-status terminology varies between journals
- When you should contact the editorial office
- What status changes may appear next
- Common mistakes researchers make when interpreting submission dashboards
- How to use the waiting period productively
Table of Contents
- Is It Normal to Skip “With Editor”?
- What Probably Happened During Those Three Days?
- What Does “Submitted to Journal” Mean?
- What Does “With Editor” Mean?
- What Does “Under Review” Mean?
- Does Under Review Mean a Reviewer Has Accepted the Invitation?
- Why Statuses Sometimes Change Very Quickly
- Does Fast Movement Mean the Paper Is Strong?
- Has the Manuscript Avoided Desk Rejection?
- Could the Status Be an Automated System Change?
- Common Manuscript Statuses Explained
- What Should You Do Now?
- When Should You Contact the Journal?
- Practical Examples
- Mistakes to Avoid While Waiting
- Manuscript Preparation During Peer Review
- Checklist
- Summary
- FAQs
- About the Author
- Conclusion
Methodology and Academic Sources
The guidance in this article is based primarily on current publisher documentation explaining editorial workflows and manuscript-status terminology.
Importantly, there is no universal status sequence followed by every scholarly journal. Editorial practices depend on the publisher, journal, manuscript-management system, discipline, editor, and journal-specific configuration.
For example, Springer Nature describes a broad workflow consisting of an initial quality check, editor assignment, peer review, and editorial decision. Elsevier’s Editorial Manager documentation provides more granular author-facing statuses while specifically noting that individual submissions can skip phases.
Therefore, your journal’s instructions, submission portal, and editorial office remain the authoritative sources for interpreting your particular manuscript.
Is It Normal for a Manuscript to Skip “With Editor”?
Yes. An author-facing manuscript dashboard can appear to skip “With Editor,” even though editorial handling occurred internally.
This is probably the single most important point to understand.
Researchers naturally interpret manuscript-status pages as a chronological record:
Submitted → With Editor → Under Review → Reviews Completed → Decision
Actual editorial systems are more complicated.
Elsevier explains that Editorial Manager statuses usually correspond to particular phases, but individual submissions can skip a phase or move backward to an earlier phase depending on editor actions. Journals can also customize the wording displayed to authors.
That means the absence of “With Editor” from your dashboard history does not establish that no editor was involved.
An editor could have been assigned on Monday morning, assessed your manuscript later that day, selected reviewers on Tuesday, and triggered reviewer invitations immediately. If your dashboard changed from one broad status to another, you might never have seen the intermediate state.
What Probably Happened During Those Three Days?
The most plausible sequence is straightforward.
Day 1: Submission and Initial Processing
After you clicked the final submission button, the manuscript entered the journal’s workflow.
Depending on the journal, staff or automated systems may have checked items such as:
- Required manuscript files
- Author details
- Declarations
- Ethics information
- Competing-interest statements
- Basic formatting
- Article type
- Required supplementary material
- Possible technical compliance issues
Springer Nature, for example, describes an initial quality-check stage that can include authorship, competing interests, ethics approval, and plagiarism-related checks before editor assignment.
Day 2: Editorial Assignment or Initial Assessment
The manuscript may then have been assigned to an editor.
The editor’s preliminary role is normally different from that of a peer reviewer. At this stage, the editor may ask whether the submission is sufficiently appropriate to continue through the journal’s process.
Depending on the journal, considerations can include:
- Fit with the journal’s scope
- Article type
- Broad academic relevance
- Apparent methodological appropriateness
- Completeness
- Presentation quality
- Whether external peer review is warranted
Springer Nature describes editor assignment as occurring after the initial quality check and states that, if satisfied with the work, the editor chooses appropriate peer reviewers.
Day 3: Reviewer Selection or Invitation
If the editor decided not to desk reject the manuscript at that point, reviewer invitations may have been initiated.
That action can trigger the status visible to the author.
In Elsevier’s Editorial Manager documentation, “Under Review” indicates that reviewers have been invited and that the peer-review process is underway.
Therefore, the three-day timeline is plausible without anything unusual occurring.
What Does “Submitted to Journal” Mean?
“Submitted to Journal” generally means that you have completed your required submission steps and the journal has received the manuscript for processing.
In Editorial Manager specifically, Elsevier describes this stage as one in which the journal’s editorial team checks the submission before either returning it to the author for action or assigning it to an editor.
Authors sometimes assume that the manuscript is simply sitting untouched during this period.
That is not necessarily the case.
Administrative checks, automated checks, editor assignment, conflict checks, manuscript routing, and other internal tasks may occur without producing a new status visible to the author.
What Does “With Editor” Mean?
For journals using terminology similar to Editorial Manager, “With Editor” usually indicates that an editor has been assigned and the manuscript is awaiting or undergoing editorial action.
According to Elsevier, the editor may at this point be:
- Reading and assessing the manuscript
- Assigning another editor
- Performing other editorial actions
- Preparing to invite reviewers
The status remains until an editorial action triggers a different system state, commonly reviewer invitations.
This explains why the stage may be extremely short.
Imagine that the journal assigns your manuscript to an associate editor at 9:00 a.m. The editor reads the abstract and manuscript, checks suitability, chooses reviewers, and sends invitations that afternoon.
Technically, your manuscript may have been “With Editor” for several hours.
If you checked the dashboard only once that evening, you could see only the later status.
What Does “Under Review” Actually Mean?
“Under Review” generally indicates that the manuscript has entered the peer-review workflow, but you should not interpret the phrase more precisely than the journal’s own system permits.
Different platforms and journals use the term differently.
For Elsevier Editorial Manager, the current support documentation states that “Under Review” means reviewers have been invited and the peer-review process is underway.
This distinction matters.
“Under Review” does not necessarily prove that:
- Two reviewers have already agreed
- A reviewer is currently reading the full manuscript
- Review reports will arrive soon
- The editor has received positive feedback
- The manuscript is likely to be accepted
It indicates progress in the workflow—not the eventual outcome.
Does “Under Review” Mean Reviewers Have Already Accepted?
Not necessarily.
This is one of the most common misunderstandings among authors.
Elsevier’s June 2026 Editorial Manager documentation indicates that a manuscript can show “Under Review” when at least one pending reviewer is invited or agreed.
Therefore, the status could mean that reviewer invitations have been sent but suitable reviewers are still being secured.
Finding reviewers can itself take time.
An editor may invite several people before enough reviewers agree. Some decline because of:
- Workload
- Conflicts of interest
- Lack of appropriate expertise
- Travel or leave
- Existing reviewing commitments
- Insufficient time
Elsevier specifically notes that editors need to identify and invite reviewers and obtain agreement, and that the broader “Under Review” period can encompass several activities that are not visible to authors.
So, if your status stays unchanged for several weeks, that does not necessarily mean nothing is happening.
Why Can a Manuscript Become Under Review So Quickly?
Several perfectly normal explanations exist.
1. The Editorial Office Was Efficient
Your paper may simply have been processed quickly.
Some journals have editorial staff checking incoming submissions daily. A complete, correctly uploaded manuscript may move through technical checks faster than one requiring clarification.
2. An Editor Was Available Immediately
Editorial workload varies.
If the appropriate handling editor was available when your manuscript arrived, assignment could happen rapidly.
3. The Editor Quickly Recognized the Paper as Suitable for Review
Not every preliminary assessment requires several weeks.
A manuscript that clearly fits the journal’s scope may allow the editor to make a relatively quick decision about whether external review is appropriate.
That does not mean the editor has already judged the research as publishable. It means the manuscript was considered suitable enough to proceed at that stage.
4. Reviewers Were Easy to Identify
For a well-defined research topic, the editor may already know suitable specialists.
Reviewer databases and editorial-management tools can also support reviewer identification.
5. “With Editor” Was Too Brief for You to See
This may be the simplest explanation.
Your manuscript could have displayed “With Editor” for only part of a day.
6. The Journal Does Not Expose Every Intermediate Status
Journal systems often simplify complex internal workflows for authors.
Elsevier specifically notes that journals may customize status wording.
7. A Single Editorial Action Triggered the Next Status
Once an editor performs the system action associated with reviewer invitations, the displayed status can change immediately.
There does not have to be a minimum number of days spent at “With Editor.”
Is Going Under Review After Three Days a Good Sign?
It is a positive procedural development, but it is not a prediction of acceptance.
If the status genuinely means that your manuscript has moved beyond initial processing and into peer-review activity, that is preferable to an immediate desk rejection.
However, researchers should distinguish between process success and publication success.
At this stage, you may reasonably conclude:
The manuscript has progressed further in the journal’s evaluation process.
You cannot reasonably conclude:
The manuscript is likely to be accepted.
Peer reviewers may later recommend:
- Acceptance
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Rejection
The editor may also seek additional reviews or make an editorial decision based on the journal’s policies and the reports received.
Wiley’s peer-review guidance similarly explains that editors consider reviewer feedback along with journal-related factors when reaching decisions.
Does This Mean My Manuscript Passed Desk Review?
Probably, if “Under Review” at your journal genuinely means external reviewers have been invited—but verify the journal’s terminology before treating this as certain.
A desk rejection normally occurs when an editor determines that a manuscript should not be sent for external peer review.
If reviewers have actually been invited, then your manuscript has normally moved beyond that particular initial rejection point.
However, there are two cautions.
First, some journals use broad labels such as “In Review” or “Under Review” for stages that may include internal editorial assessment.
Second, a manuscript can still be rejected after external review.
Therefore, “Under Review” is best interpreted as progress, not as a guarantee.
Could This Simply Be an Automatic Status Change?
Yes, in the sense that manuscript-management systems can automatically update the author-facing label when an editor performs a particular action.
That does not make the underlying process meaningless.
For example, an editor may click the command that formally sends reviewer invitations. The system then automatically changes the displayed status from one workflow phase to another.
The status change is automated, but it was triggered by genuine editorial activity.
This distinction helps explain why authors sometimes see sudden changes after several days of apparent inactivity.
Why Different Journals Show Different Statuses
There is no single worldwide manuscript-dashboard vocabulary.
One publisher may display:
Submitted → Editor Assigned → Reviewers Invited → Under Review
Another may show:
Submitted → With Editor → Under Review
Another may expose only:
Submission Received → In Review → Decision
Springer Nature’s Research Square peer-review timeline, for example, can distinguish events including “Editor assigned,” “Reviewers invited,” “Reviewers accepted,” and “Reviews received.”
This illustrates an important principle:
The number of labels visible to you does not equal the number of editorial steps occurring internally.
Common Manuscript Statuses and What They Usually Suggest
| Status | General Interpretation | What You Should Usually Do |
|---|---|---|
| Submitted to Journal | Submission received and entering initial processing | Wait |
| Technical Check | Administrative or submission requirements being checked | Respond only if contacted |
| With Editor | Editor assigned or assessing manuscript | Wait |
| Editor Assigned | Handling editor has been allocated | Wait |
| Reviewers Invited | Journal is seeking peer reviewers | Wait |
| Under Review | Peer-review workflow is active | Wait |
| Required Reviews Completed | Required review reports may have been received | Wait for editorial assessment |
| Decision in Process | Editorial decision is being prepared | Wait |
| Revision Required | Changes have been requested | Read decision letter carefully |
| Accepted | Journal has accepted the manuscript | Follow production instructions |
| Rejected | Journal will not proceed with publication | Evaluate comments and next journal strategy |
These meanings are general rather than universal. Always use the terminology provided by your own journal as the primary reference.
For Editorial Manager specifically, Elsevier explains that “Required Reviews Completed” indicates that the target number of required reviews has been received and the handling editor is considering them. “Decision in Process” means editors have begun entering a decision.
What Should You Do Now?
If your manuscript became “Under Review” after three days, usually you should simply wait.
You do not need to email the editor asking why “With Editor” disappeared.
Instead:
- Save your manuscript ID.
- Check that your corresponding-author email address is correct.
- Monitor your email, including spam or junk folders.
- Check the submission portal occasionally rather than repeatedly.
- Review the journal’s stated first-decision or review timelines if available.
- Keep your original submission files organized.
- Prepare mentally and practically for possible reviewer comments.
- Continue with your other research rather than interpreting every dashboard change.
Elsevier advises authors to consult journal-specific review-time information and says that contacting the editor becomes appropriate when the wait is considerably longer than the journal’s indicated average review speed.
Should I Contact the Journal Because “With Editor” Was Skipped?
No, not merely for that reason.
A skipped visible status is normally not sufficient reason to contact an editorial office.
An email such as:
“Why did my manuscript go to Under Review without showing With Editor?”
is unlikely to provide useful information unless there is another indication of a problem.
Consider contacting the journal if:
- The system asks you to take action but gives no instructions.
- You received contradictory emails.
- Your manuscript disappears from the portal.
- Important author information is incorrect.
- The journal significantly exceeds its stated or typical decision timeline.
- You have a genuine ethical or factual issue that must be reported.
- You need to withdraw the submission for a legitimate reason.
For ordinary peer-review questions, use the journal’s official contact route. Springer Nature, for example, directs authors with submission and peer-review queries toward the relevant journal contact channel.
Practical Example 1: The Invisible “With Editor” Stage
Suppose you submit your manuscript on Monday at 10:00 a.m.
The journal checks the files Monday afternoon.
On Tuesday morning, an associate editor is assigned.
The manuscript status may technically become “With Editor.”
The editor reviews the title, abstract, manuscript, declarations, journal fit, and relevant material on Tuesday.
At 4:00 p.m., the editor sends reviewer invitations.
The status changes to “Under Review.”
You log into the system Wednesday morning.
All you ever saw was:
Monday: Submitted to Journal
Wednesday: Under Review
It appears that “With Editor” was skipped.
Internally, it was not.
Practical Example 2: Journal Configuration Hides the Intermediate Stage
A researcher submits to a journal whose workflow contains:
Submission → Technical check → Editor assignment → Reviewer selection → Peer review
However, the author portal exposes only:
Submission Received → Under Review
In this scenario, several editorial operations happen internally without creating a separate author-facing label.
The researcher therefore should not interpret the missing status as missing editorial oversight.
Practical Example 3: Reviewer Invitations Trigger “Under Review”
A manuscript passes preliminary editorial assessment quickly.
The editor sends invitations to three potential reviewers.
The submission now displays “Under Review.”
Two reviewers have not yet answered, while one later declines.
The editor then invites another researcher.
From the author’s perspective, the status remains “Under Review” for two weeks.
This does not mean the manuscript has been continuously read by three reviewers for two weeks. Reviewer recruitment may itself be part of that period.
Elsevier’s guidance specifically notes that the “Under Review” stage can encompass multiple activities and that securing reviewers contributes to the time involved.
Practical Example 4: A Fast Transition Followed by a Long Review
A paper becomes “Under Review” only three days after submission.
The author concludes:
“This journal is extremely fast. I should receive a decision next week.”
That conclusion does not follow.
Initial processing speed and peer-review speed are different variables.
The editor may identify reviewers quickly but then need several invitations before enough reviewers accept. Reviewers who accept also need sufficient time to assess the manuscript properly.
Wiley notes that peer-review duration varies between journals and authors should consult the particular journal for relevant timing.
Does the Fast Status Change Mean the Journal Did Not Read My Paper Carefully?
Not necessarily.
An editor’s initial assessment and a full peer review serve different purposes.
During preliminary handling, an experienced editor may be looking primarily at questions such as:
- Is this manuscript suitable for the journal?
- Does the topic fall within scope?
- Is external evaluation justified?
- Are there obvious problems preventing review?
- Which experts would be appropriate reviewers?
That is not the same as conducting a detailed peer review.
External reviewers generally evaluate the work more deeply according to their expertise, while the editor ultimately uses the reviews and editorial judgment to reach a decision.
Springer Nature’s workflow separates editor assignment from the peer-review stage, with reviewers evaluating the technical soundness and scientific validity of the work.
What Status Might Appear Next?
The answer depends entirely on the journal system.
Possible changes include:
- Under Review remaining unchanged for weeks
- Reviewer Assigned
- Reviewers Invited
- Reviews Received
- Required Reviews Completed
- With Editor
- Decision in Process
- Major Revision
- Minor Revision
- Reject
- Accept
Do not panic if the status returns to an earlier-looking stage.
For example, Elsevier explains that a manuscript can move back from a later stage when additional reviewers are sought or another editor is assigned.
Journal workflows are not always linear.
What If “Under Review” Changes Back to “With Editor”?
This can also be normal.
Possible explanations include:
- A reviewer declined.
- Reviewer invitations expired.
- The editor needs to invite replacements.
- Sufficient reviews have been received and the editor is evaluating them.
- Another editorial action changed the system state.
- The journal modified the target number of reviews.
Elsevier documentation provides a concrete example: after the required number of reviews is altered, a submission may display “With Editor” when there are no remaining invited or agreed reviewers, whereas it may show “Under Review” when at least one pending reviewer is invited or agreed.
Therefore, dashboard movement by itself should not be interpreted as good or bad news.
Common Mistakes Researchers Make When Reading Manuscript Statuses
Mistake 1: Treating Every Status as a Decision Signal
“Under Review” means the manuscript is progressing through a process.
It does not predict the eventual decision.
Mistake 2: Assuming a Skipped Status Means Editorial Negligence
You cannot infer everything the editorial team did from an author-facing dashboard.
Mistake 3: Checking the Portal Several Times Every Day
Frequent checking usually increases anxiety without producing useful information.
Mistake 4: Emailing the Editor After Only a Few Days
Three days is generally far too early to ask when a decision will arrive unless the journal has specifically promised an unusually short decision window.
Mistake 5: Assuming “Under Review” Means All Reviewers Have Accepted
As explained above, some systems can use the status while reviewer invitations are still pending.
Mistake 6: Assuming Fast Initial Processing Means Fast Final Decision
Reviewer recruitment and reviewer response time can substantially extend the process.
Mistake 7: Assuming Peer Review Means Acceptance Is Likely
Reaching peer review is meaningful progress, but manuscripts can still receive major revision or rejection.
How to Use the Waiting Period Productively
The peer-review period does not have to be passive.
You can prepare for several possible outcomes without altering the manuscript currently under consideration.
Review Your Submitted Version
Keep the exact submitted version available.
Do not rely on memory when reviewer comments arrive.
Recheck Your Data and Supporting Files
Make sure you can readily access:
- Raw or processed data where applicable
- Analysis files
- Supplementary material
- Figures
- Tables
- Ethics documentation
- Relevant approvals
- Reference-management library
Read Your Manuscript as a Reviewer Might
After some distance from submission, unclear passages often become easier to notice.
Look particularly at:
- Research question
- Novel contribution
- Methodology
- Results
- Interpretation
- Limitations
- Conclusions
Do not send unsolicited revisions while the manuscript is under review unless the journal specifically permits or requests them.
Instead, keep private notes for a future revision.
Prepare for Reviewer Comments
Reviewer feedback may question:
- Methodological choices
- Statistical analysis
- Literature coverage
- Interpretation
- Claims
- Presentation
- Figures and tables
- Language clarity
- Limitations
Wiley’s peer-review guidance describes reviewers as assessing issues including originality, relevance, methodology, argumentation, conclusions, writing quality, tables, figures, and ethical considerations.
Being prepared to answer such comments carefully can make the revision stage more manageable.
When Manuscript Editing May Be Useful
Peer review often identifies issues that are scientific, methodological, conceptual, linguistic, structural, or presentational. These require different kinds of responses.
If reviewers later request clearer argumentation, improved organization, more precise academic English, or stronger presentation, professional editing may be helpful—but editorial support should not replace the researchers’ intellectual responsibility.
Researchers remain responsible for:
- Their data
- Their methodology
- Their interpretation
- Their claims
- Their references
- Their response to reviewers
- Their final submitted manuscript
If your manuscript eventually requires substantial language or structural revision, Contentxprtz provides research paper editing support focused on improving academic communication while preserving the author’s research contribution.
Where broader manuscript development is relevant, researchers may also review Contentxprtz’s academic editing services or research paper services.
Any external academic assistance should be used in accordance with your institution’s, funder’s, and journal’s policies.
Manuscript Status Checklist: What Should I Do Right Now?
Use this checklist if your paper changed to “Under Review” after only a few days.
- Confirm that the submission portal shows the correct manuscript title and ID.
- Check that no action is requested from you.
- Read any automated emails sent by the journal.
- Check your spam or junk folder.
- Find the journal’s explanation of submission statuses, if available.
- Check whether the journal publishes typical first-decision or review times.
- Do not assume that missing “With Editor” means the editor never handled the paper.
- Do not assume that “Under Review” guarantees acceptance.
- Avoid contacting the journal after only three days unless there is an actual problem.
- Keep the exact submitted manuscript and supplementary files organized.
- Continue your research or other academic work while waiting.
- Prepare to respond carefully if revision is requested.
- Contact the journal only when the waiting period becomes meaningfully longer than its published or typical timeline, or when a genuine submission problem exists.
Summary: Manuscript Became Under Review Without “With Editor” Status
If your manuscript was submitted for three days and then changed to “Under Review” without ever visibly showing “With Editor,” there is usually no cause for concern.
The most likely explanation is that the journal completed its preliminary processing quickly.
Your manuscript may have undergone:
Submission → technical checks → editor assignment → editorial assessment → reviewer invitation
while your dashboard displayed only:
Submitted → Under Review
Elsevier explicitly notes that Editorial Manager submissions can skip displayed phases depending on editor actions and that journals can customize status terminology.
Furthermore, “Under Review” does not necessarily mean that several reviewers are already actively evaluating the manuscript. In Editorial Manager, an invited or agreed reviewer can be sufficient for the workflow to display that status in relevant circumstances.
Therefore:
The transition is generally a sign of procedural progress, not a guarantee of acceptance and not evidence of a problem.
Your best next step is normally to wait, monitor official correspondence, and judge the timeline against information provided by the specific journal.
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 the author-facing dashboard does not necessarily display every internal editorial stage. Your manuscript may have been assigned to an editor and assessed very quickly before reviewer invitations were sent.
For Editorial Manager journals, Elsevier explicitly explains that individual submissions can sometimes skip a phase depending on editor actions and that journals may customize status wording.
Therefore, “With Editor” may have existed only briefly or may not have been separately visible to you.
A change to “Under Review” after three days is fast but not inherently suspicious. Unless the journal has requested action or you have received contradictory information, you normally do not need to contact the editorial office.
2. Is it a good sign that my manuscript went under review in only three days?
It is procedurally encouraging, because the manuscript appears to have progressed beyond initial submission processing.
However, it should not be interpreted as evidence that the manuscript will be accepted.
External peer review can still result in major revisions, minor revisions, rejection, or—in some cases—acceptance. The editor may also seek further reviews before deciding.
Think of “Under Review” as evidence of progress through the workflow, not evidence of a particular future decision.
3. Does “Under Review” mean the manuscript passed the editor’s desk review?
If your journal uses “Under Review” specifically to mean that external reviewers have been invited, then the manuscript has normally progressed beyond the initial decision about whether to send it to external review.
Elsevier’s Editorial Manager guidance describes “Under Review” as the point at which reviewers have been invited and peer review is underway.
However, status terminology varies among systems. Some journals may use broader wording.
For that reason, check your journal’s own status definitions before concluding definitively that a formal desk-review stage has been completed.
4. Does “Under Review” mean reviewers are already reading my manuscript?
Not necessarily.
Reviewer invitations may have been issued without all invited reviewers having accepted.
Elsevier’s Editorial Manager documentation shows that “Under Review” can apply when at least one pending reviewer is invited or agreed in relevant workflow circumstances.
This means reviewer recruitment can be occurring while the dashboard already says “Under Review.”
Do not become concerned if this status remains unchanged for some time. Finding suitable reviewers and obtaining completed reports are separate steps.
5. How long can my manuscript remain “Under Review”?
There is no universal duration.
Peer-review times vary substantially by journal, discipline, reviewer availability, article complexity, editorial workload, and other factors.
Wiley advises that peer-review duration varies by journal, while Elsevier recommends checking journal-specific review-time information where available.
A status that remains unchanged for several weeks is therefore not automatically unusual.
Instead of applying a universal deadline, compare your waiting time with the journal’s own stated review or first-decision timeframe.
6. Why did I never see “With Editor” even though the editor must choose reviewers?
The status may have been too brief for you to notice, or the journal’s configuration may not expose that stage separately.
Suppose an editor was assigned at 9:00 a.m. and sent reviewer invitations four hours later. If you checked the portal only the next day, you would see only the new status.
Submission systems are workflow tools, not detailed audit trails designed to show authors every internal action.
Elsevier specifically states that journals can customize status wording and that submissions may skip particular displayed phases.
7. Can a manuscript return from “Under Review” to “With Editor”?
Yes.
A change back to “With Editor” does not automatically indicate rejection.
Reviewer availability can change, additional reviewers may be required, or the editor may need to perform another action.
Elsevier’s documentation demonstrates that status changes can depend on whether invited or agreed reviewers remain and on the required number of reviews.
The broader Editorial Manager guidance also notes that submissions may return to earlier phases depending on editorial actions.
Therefore, avoid trying to predict the final editorial decision solely from dashboard movement.
8. Should I email the editor because the status changed unusually fast?
Usually, no.
A quick change from “Submitted” to “Under Review” is not itself a problem that requires clarification.
Contacting the editorial office is more appropriate when there is an actionable issue—for example, incorrect submission information, contradictory instructions, missing files, an ethical concern, or a waiting period substantially exceeding the journal’s normal timeline.
Elsevier recommends contacting the editor when the decision is taking considerably longer than the average review speed indicated for the journal.
After only three days, waiting is normally the more appropriate course.
9. Can I be desk rejected after the system says “Under Review”?
If external peer review has genuinely started, then you have normally moved beyond the original pre-review desk-rejection stage. However, the manuscript can still be rejected later.
Reviewers may identify methodological, conceptual, evidentiary, analytical, ethical, reporting, or presentation concerns. The editor then evaluates the reviewer reports and other relevant editorial considerations.
Therefore, do not think of “Under Review” as protection from rejection.
It simply means that the submission has progressed to a more advanced stage of evaluation according to the journal’s workflow.
10. What should I do while my manuscript is under review?
Continue your academic work and avoid repeatedly checking the submission portal.
Keep the exact submitted manuscript, data, analysis files, references, figures, supplementary materials, and relevant documentation organized. You can privately note improvements you notice, but avoid sending unsolicited manuscript changes unless the journal permits or requests them.
If reviewer comments arrive, distinguish scientific or methodological requests from language and presentation issues. Respond systematically and preserve responsibility for your intellectual work.
Where reviewers identify substantial problems with academic language, structure, consistency, or clarity, appropriately used research paper editing support can help improve communication without replacing the researcher’s own scholarly contribution.
About the Author
Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator
Dr. Aanya Mehta is a research-oriented writer and professional communicator with a strong focus on accuracy, clarity, and evidence-based insight. Her work combines analytical thinking with accessible writing, helping readers understand complex business topics through well-researched, credible, and practical content.
Conclusion
If your manuscript moved from “Submitted to Journal” to “Under Review” after approximately three days without visibly displaying “With Editor,” the most reasonable interpretation is that the editorial workflow progressed faster than the status history visible to you suggests.
The manuscript may have undergone initial checks, editor assignment, preliminary editorial assessment, reviewer selection, and reviewer invitation during those three days.
There is no requirement that an author must see every intermediate status.
In Editorial Manager specifically, Elsevier confirms that submissions can skip status phases depending on editorial actions and that journals can customize the terminology authors see.
The important distinction is between what the status does tell you and what it does not tell you.
It tells you that your manuscript has progressed.
It does not tell you that reviewers will recommend acceptance.
It does not tell you when a decision will arrive.
It does not prove that every reviewer has already accepted an invitation.
And it certainly does not mean something went wrong simply because “With Editor” never appeared.
At this point, self-monitoring is usually enough. Check your email, keep your files organized, consult the journal’s published review timeframe, and allow the editorial and peer-review process to proceed.
If revision is eventually requested and the paper needs clearer academic language, stronger structure, consistency checks, or journal-ready presentation, professional research paper editing services can provide appropriate support while leaving the research, claims, data, interpretation, and final scholarly decisions in your hands.
“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”
