What Is to Be Done With a Journal Submission Stuck With “Under Review” for More Than Three Months After the First Revision?

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

If you are wondering what is to be done with a journal submission stuck with under review for more than three months after the first revision, the most appropriate next step is usually a polite status inquiry to the journal’s editorial office or handling editor. Three months after a revised manuscript was submitted is long enough to justify asking for an update, particularly if the journal’s normal review timeline appears shorter. However, it does not automatically mean that the manuscript has been rejected, forgotten, or mishandled.

A revised manuscript can return to peer review for several reasons. The editor may send it back to the original reviewers, invite a new reviewer, wait for an overdue report, seek an additional opinion because reviewers disagree, or assess the revised paper personally. The meaning of the label “Under Review” also differs between journal systems. Elsevier’s current Editorial Manager guidance, for example, says journals can customize status terminology and describes “Under Review” as a stage in which reviewers have been invited and peer review is underway. Wiley uses the term more broadly in its current author system, where “Under Review” can include editorial assessment as well as potential external peer review.

That distinction matters because the status displayed on your dashboard is not always a precise real-time description of where the manuscript is sitting.

For a researcher, especially a PhD scholar, early-career academic, or author facing a graduation, funding, promotion, or project deadline, three months of silence after revision can become stressful. Nevertheless, repeated emails, contacting reviewers directly, threatening the editorial office, or immediately submitting the manuscript elsewhere are generally poor responses.

A more effective approach is systematic: check the journal’s published timelines and correspondence, send one concise inquiry containing the manuscript ID and revision date, allow a reasonable period for a response, and escalate through the journal or publisher only if necessary. If the delay eventually makes withdrawal appropriate, handle the withdrawal formally and carefully before submitting the paper elsewhere.

This guide explains how.

Quick Answer: What Should You Do After Three Months Under Review Following Revision?

If a revised journal manuscript has remained Under Review for more than three months, first check the journal’s author guidelines, submission portal, previous editorial correspondence, and any published peer-review timelines. Review times vary substantially between journals and disciplines; there is no universal rule that a revised article must receive a decision within three months. Wiley explicitly notes that peer-review duration varies by journal, while reviewer availability is one factor that can affect timing.

If the journal has provided no recent update, send a short and professional status inquiry now. Include the manuscript title or manuscript ID, the date on which you submitted the first revision, and a neutral request for information about the manuscript’s current progress or expected next step.

Do not interpret “Under Review” as evidence of either acceptance or rejection. Publisher systems use status labels differently, and a manuscript may remain in or return to an under-review state while reviewers are being invited, reports are outstanding, the editor is evaluating reports, or additional review is being sought. Elsevier specifically notes that a manuscript may return to “Under Review” if additional reviews are requested.

If you receive no response after a reasonable follow-up, contact the journal’s editorial office through its official channel. Springer Nature, for example, directs authors with peer-review and manuscript-under-review queries to the relevant journal’s contact route.

Withdrawal should normally be considered only after you have evaluated the journal’s expected timeline, made appropriate inquiries, and decided that continued delay is no longer acceptable for your circumstances.

Key Takeaways

• Three months after a first revision is a reasonable point to request an update, although it is not a universal deadline for an editorial decision.
• “Under Review” does not have exactly the same meaning across publishers or submission platforms.
• A revised manuscript may need another full round of peer review, particularly after a major revision.
• Send a concise, courteous inquiry rather than assuming the manuscript has been lost or rejected.
• Avoid emailing repeatedly within short intervals or trying to identify and contact reviewers directly.
• Escalate through the journal’s editorial office or publisher support route if a reasonable inquiry receives no response.
• If you decide to withdraw, follow the journal’s formal procedure and avoid simultaneous submission to another journal while the manuscript remains actively under consideration.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• what “Under Review” may mean after a first revision;
• whether three months is unusually long;
• why revised manuscripts sometimes remain in peer review for months;
• how and when to contact the editor;
• what to write in a manuscript-status inquiry;
• when escalation or withdrawal may become reasonable;
• mistakes researchers should avoid while waiting.

Table of Contents

1. Is Three Months After Revision Too Long?
2. What “Under Review” Can Mean After a First Revision
3. Why Revised Manuscripts Sometimes Take Longer Than Expected
4. What to Do Step by Step
5. How to Write a Status Inquiry
6. What to Do If the Editor Does Not Reply
7. When to Consider Escalation
8. Should You Withdraw the Manuscript?
9. Common Mistakes to Avoid
10. Practical Researcher Scenarios
11. Manuscript Follow-Up Checklist
12. How Contentxprtz Can Support a Revised Manuscript
13. Summary
14. Frequently Asked Questions
15. About the Author
16. Conclusion

Methodology and Academic Sources

The guidance in this article is based on general scholarly publishing practice together with current author information from major publishers and publication-guidance organizations, including Springer Nature, Elsevier, Wiley, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

These sources also demonstrate an important point: journal workflows are not identical. Springer Nature describes an editorial sequence involving initial checks, editor assignment, peer review, and editorial decision, while Wiley notes that review duration varies by journal. Elsevier states that individual journals may customize the wording of manuscript statuses.

Therefore, always give precedence to the instructions, timelines, and correspondence of the specific journal handling your paper.

Is Three Months After the First Revision Too Long?

Three months can feel long, but it is not automatically evidence of a problem. Whether it is unusually long depends on the journal, discipline, manuscript type, reviewer availability, extent of the revision, and the journal’s editorial workflow.

A revised manuscript does not necessarily move directly from revision to acceptance.

After receiving your revised paper, an editor might:

• evaluate the revision personally;
• return the manuscript to one or more original reviewers;
• invite a replacement reviewer;
• request an additional independent review;
• wait for reviewers who accepted invitations but have not yet submitted reports;
• compare conflicting reviewer recommendations;
• consult another editor;
• request an expert assessment of a particular technical issue.

Springer Nature describes peer review as a stage in which reviewers assess matters such as methods, analysis, interpretation, scientific validity, and ethical robustness before an editor reaches a decision.

Elsevier similarly explains that review can take longer than authors anticipate because editors must identify and invite suitable reviewers, obtain agreements to review, wait for the reviews, and then assess the reports before making a decision.

Therefore, the question should not simply be:

“Has three months passed?”

A more useful set of questions is:

• What review duration does this journal normally report?
• Was my first decision a major or minor revision?
• Did the editor say that the revised paper would be returned to reviewers?
• Has the manuscript status changed during these three months?
• Has the journal previously communicated any reviewer difficulty?
• Is there a deadline that makes the delay particularly important?

If three months have passed with no meaningful update, however, a polite inquiry is entirely reasonable.

What Does “Under Review” Mean After the First Revision?

“Under Review” generally means that the manuscript remains actively within the journal’s assessment process, but you should not assume that the phrase always means two reviewers are currently reading your revision.

Elsevier’s Editorial Manager guidance says that “Under Review” means reviewers have been invited and the peer-review process is underway. It also notes that a manuscript can later return to “Under Review” when additional reviewers are sought.

Wiley’s author guidance uses the status more broadly: a manuscript marked “Under Review” has passed initial screening, and the stage can cover editorial review as well as potential external peer review.

This is why researchers should avoid reading too much into dashboard wording.

Status or Situation	What It May Indicate	Appropriate Author Response
Under Review	Editorial or external review is continuing	Wait within the expected timeline; inquire politely if substantially delayed
With Editor	Handling editor is assessing or processing the manuscript	Usually wait unless the stage becomes unusually prolonged
Reviews Completed	Required reports may have arrived	Allow the editor time to evaluate reports
Decision in Process	Editorial decision preparation has started	Normally wait
Revision Requested	Further author changes are required	Read the decision letter carefully and respond systematically
No status change for months	Workflow may still be progressing behind the displayed label	Request a professional status update

The exact labels vary between journals and submission platforms. Always interpret them alongside the journal’s own documentation.

Why Can a Revised Manuscript Stay Under Review for More Than Three Months?

Several entirely ordinary editorial situations can produce a long second review cycle.

1. The original reviewer is unavailable

An editor may initially try to return the revised manuscript to the reviewers who evaluated the first version.

That makes sense because those reviewers already understand the study and can assess whether their concerns were addressed.

However, reviewers are usually active researchers with competing responsibilities. A reviewer who handled the original manuscript may be unavailable for the revision.

The editor may then need to find a replacement.

2. A replacement reviewer is difficult to secure

Finding a qualified reviewer is not equivalent to sending one email.

Potential reviewers may:

• decline;
• fail to respond;
• have conflicts of interest;
• lack availability;
• feel that the revised manuscript falls outside their expertise.

Publisher guidance recognizes reviewer availability as a factor affecting review duration.

3. The first revision was substantial

A major revision can require almost as much evaluation as the original manuscript.

Suppose reviewers originally questioned:

• the statistical analysis;
• methodological justification;
• interpretation of findings;
• missing literature;
• additional experiments;
• sampling decisions.

If your revision substantially changes the manuscript, the journal may require detailed reassessment rather than a quick editorial check.

4. Reviewers disagree

One reviewer might recommend acceptance while another continues to identify substantial concerns.

An editor may then need to:

• compare the reasoning in both reports;
• seek clarification;
• obtain an additional review;
• consult another editor.

A longer delay in such a situation does not reveal which decision the editor will ultimately make.

5. The editor is waiting for a final report

Sometimes several reviews arrive promptly but one required report remains outstanding.

The dashboard may continue to show a broad “Under Review” label throughout this period.

6. The editor requests another review

Elsevier specifically notes that a manuscript can return to an “Under Review” status when additional reviews are sought after earlier reports have been received.

This is one reason status changes should not be interpreted as a hidden acceptance or rejection signal.

7. Editorial workload delays the decision

Editors may need time to assess complex reviewer reports, particularly where technical issues, ethical questions, conflicting recommendations, or substantial revisions require close attention.

The editor, rather than the reviewers, is responsible for the eventual editorial decision. ICMJE guidance emphasizes that editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal editor and that journals differ in their peer-review arrangements.

What Is to Be Done With a Journal Submission Stuck With Under Review for More Than Three Months After the First Revision?

Use a structured approach rather than reacting only to the number of days that have passed.

Step 1: Confirm the exact revision date

Check your submission system and confirmation email.

Record:

• manuscript ID;
• manuscript title;
• original submission date;
• first decision date;
• revision requested;
• revised submission date;
• date the status changed to Under Review;
• most recent status change.

Do not rely only on memory.

Step 2: Re-read the first decision letter

The editor may have already indicated what would happen next.

Look for statements such as:

• the manuscript will be returned to the reviewers;
• the editor will evaluate the changes;
• further peer review may be necessary;
• a new decision will follow after reassessment.

A major revision naturally creates more potential for another detailed review cycle.

Step 3: Check the journal’s published timeline

Some journals publish:

• median or average first-decision times;
• peer-review timelines;
• author-service estimates;
• journal-specific turnaround information.

However, a first-decision metric may not tell you exactly how long re-review after revision takes.

Wiley explicitly advises authors that peer-review duration varies by journal and that the journal’s editors or staff are the appropriate source for journal-specific information.

Step 4: Check whether the status has changed

A series such as:

Revision Submitted → With Editor → Under Review

suggests a different workflow from a manuscript that has remained at one generic status since resubmission.

Do not treat every dashboard change as meaningful, but keep a simple record.

Step 5: Send one polite status inquiry

After more than three months, a concise inquiry is reasonable.

You are not asking the editor to accept the paper.

You are asking whether an update can be provided.

Step 6: Give the journal time to reply

Editorial offices differ in staffing and workload. Avoid sending another message the next day because you have not received an immediate response.

If the journal provides a support-response timeframe, use that as your guide.

Step 7: Follow up once if necessary

If your first message receives no response after a reasonable interval, send a brief follow-up referencing the earlier inquiry.

Step 8: Use the official editorial-office route

If direct correspondence with the handling editor does not produce a response, look for:

• editorial office email;
• “Contact the journal” form;
• manuscript-support portal;
• publisher support route.

Springer Nature specifically instructs authors with queries relating to peer review, submission, and manuscripts under review to use the journal contact route.

Step 9: Decide whether continued waiting is acceptable

Your decision may depend on factors such as:

• a thesis submission;
• grant reporting;
• job or promotion requirements;
• rapidly changing research;
• risk that findings become outdated;
• journal-specific delays;
• repeated lack of communication.

If the delay has become professionally damaging, withdrawal may eventually be reasonable—but it should be a considered editorial decision, not an emotional reaction to a dashboard status.

How to Write a Polite Manuscript-Status Inquiry

A good status inquiry is short.

The editorial office does not need a long explanation of the research or a detailed history of every stage.

Include:

• manuscript ID;
• manuscript title if useful;
• revision submission date;
• current status;
• courteous request for an update.

A suitable message could read:

Subject: Status Inquiry – Revised Manuscript [Manuscript ID]

Dear Dr. [Editor’s Surname] / Editorial Office,

I am writing to inquire politely about the status of our revised manuscript, “[Manuscript Title]” (Manuscript ID: [ID]).

We submitted the first revised version on [date], following the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. The submission system has shown the manuscript as “Under Review” since approximately [date].

I understand that peer review can require considerable time, and I appreciate the efforts of the editor and reviewers. As more than three months have now passed since the revised submission, I would be grateful if you could let us know whether there is any update on its current status or expected next stage.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,
[Corresponding Author Name]

This approach works because it is factual and respectful.

It does not:

• demand a decision;
• imply misconduct;
• accuse reviewers of delay;
• suggest that acceptance is expected;
• pressure the editor unnecessarily.

Should You Mention a Thesis, Funding, or Career Deadline?

Yes, if the deadline is genuine and relevant, you may mention it briefly.

For example:

“An update would be particularly helpful because I am preparing documentation for my doctoral progress review in October.”

Avoid presenting the deadline as though the editor is required to accelerate peer review because of it.

Your institutional deadline and the journal’s editorial responsibilities are separate matters.

A genuine constraint can provide context, but it should not become pressure.

What Should You Do If the Editor Does Not Reply?

One unanswered email does not immediately justify escalation.

A sensible sequence is:

1. Confirm that you used the correct email address or submission-system contact function.
2. Check spam and the journal portal for a response.
3. Allow a reasonable interval.
4. Send one short follow-up.
5. Contact the editorial office if your original message went only to an individual editor.
6. Use the publisher’s official support route if journal-level communication remains unavailable.

Keep copies of correspondence.

A simple communication record might contain:

Date	Action	Outcome
12 January	First revision submitted	Confirmation received
17 January	Status changed to Under Review	No action required
20 April	Status inquiry sent	Awaiting response
29 April	Follow-up sent	Editorial office replied
2 May	Journal confirmed reviewer report pending	Continue waiting

This record becomes especially useful if the delay continues and you later need to request withdrawal.

When Is Escalation Appropriate?

Escalation should be proportionate and procedural.

Consider escalating when:

• your manuscript has been delayed well beyond the journal’s normal range;
• repeated professional inquiries receive no response;
• the submission appears administratively stuck;
• contradictory instructions are being issued;
• an important procedural problem needs resolution;
• you have requested withdrawal but cannot determine whether the manuscript remains active.

Start with the journal.

Then, where appropriate, use the publisher’s official editorial-support or complaints route.

Do not begin with public criticism on social media or accusations of editorial misconduct unless you have evidence of a genuinely serious issue and have considered the appropriate formal process.

ICMJE’s current recommendations state that journals should process manuscripts in a timely way and respond to authors’ requests about manuscript status in a timely manner.

That supports reasonable, professional follow-up by authors. It does not mean every three-month review constitutes an ethical violation.

Should You Withdraw a Manuscript After a Long Review Delay?

Possibly—but withdrawal should usually be a later option rather than your first response at three months.

Consider withdrawal when:

• the journal is substantially exceeding its stated or typical timeline;
• repeated inquiries produce no meaningful response;
• you have a legitimate time-sensitive reason to publish elsewhere;
• the editorial process has become impractical for your research needs;
• you no longer wish the journal to consider the paper.

Before withdrawing, read the journal’s withdrawal policy.

Springer Nature advises authors considering another journal because the review has taken much longer than expected to notify the original editors and obtain confirmation of withdrawal before submitting elsewhere.

The ICMJE also explicitly discourages submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal.

A simple withdrawal request

If withdrawal becomes necessary, the correspondence should clearly state:

• manuscript ID;
• manuscript title;
• date of submission or revision;
• corresponding author;
• explicit request to withdraw;
• brief reason where appropriate;
• request for confirmation.

Do not disguise a withdrawal request as a status inquiry.

Do Not Submit the Same Manuscript Elsewhere While It Is Still Under Consideration

One of the most important mistakes to avoid is deciding:

“They have taken too long, so I will submit the paper to another journal and see which one responds first.”

That can create a duplicate-submission problem.

ICMJE states that authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal because multiple journals may otherwise unknowingly conduct editorial and peer-review work on the same paper.

If you decide to move to another journal, complete the withdrawal process appropriately first.

Common Mistakes Researchers Make While Waiting

Mistake 1: Assuming a long review means rejection

A delay tells you very little about the eventual decision.

It may reflect reviewer availability rather than manuscript quality.

Better approach: Ask for factual information rather than interpreting silence.

Mistake 2: Assuming a long review means acceptance

The opposite inference is equally unreliable.

A paper can remain under consideration for months and still receive major revision, minor revision, or rejection.

Better approach: Treat the manuscript as undecided until you receive the formal editorial letter.

Mistake 3: Emailing the editor every few days

Frequent messages rarely accelerate peer review.

Better approach: Send one well-timed inquiry and allow a reasonable response interval.

Mistake 4: Writing an emotional complaint

Publication delays can affect careers, theses, funding deadlines, and project schedules. Frustration is understandable, but an accusatory message may obscure the practical question you need answered.

Better approach: Keep communication concise, factual, and professional.

Mistake 5: Contacting reviewers

Authors ordinarily should not attempt to identify or contact anonymous reviewers about an active manuscript.

Better approach: Communicate through the editor or editorial office.

Mistake 6: Sending a second manuscript elsewhere before withdrawal

This risks simultaneous submission.

Better approach: Complete the appropriate withdrawal process before resubmitting the same manuscript elsewhere.

Mistake 7: Changing the manuscript while it remains under review

You may notice something you want to improve while waiting.

Do not normally upload an unsolicited replacement file or send major changes unless the journal requests them or the editor agrees.

If you discover a serious error that materially affects the results or conclusions, contact the editor promptly and transparently.

Mistake 8: Reading too much into status labels

Elsevier says journals can customize status terminology, while Wiley’s “Under Review” definition encompasses both editorial and possible external peer review.

Better approach: Use journal-specific documentation.

Practical Example 1: Major Revision Returned to the Original Reviewers

A doctoral researcher receives a major revision decision.

The reviewers request:

• additional sensitivity analysis;
• clearer inclusion criteria;
• substantial revision of the discussion;
• responses to methodological concerns.

The researcher submits a detailed response and revised manuscript.

After 14 weeks, the status remains Under Review.

Poor response

Send an angry email saying:

“I have already made all the changes. Why is the paper still not accepted?”

Better response

Recognize that major revisions can require renewed scrutiny. Send a concise status inquiry identifying the manuscript number and revision date and asking whether an update is available.

Why this is stronger

The researcher separates two issues:

1. whether the authors adequately revised the paper;
2. whether the journal has completed its independent evaluation.

Completing requested revisions does not itself guarantee acceptance. Editors consider reviewer feedback but remain responsible for the editorial outcome.

Practical Example 2: Minor Revision but No Decision for Three Months

An author receives a minor revision request involving:

• terminology corrections;
• several references;
• clarification of one table;
• small language changes.

The revised manuscript is submitted within a week.

Three months later, no decision has arrived.

Because the requested changes were relatively limited, the author expected a faster outcome.

Appropriate action

First check the journal’s workflow.

The editor may have:

• chosen to rereview the paper;
• experienced difficulty obtaining a reviewer response;
• requested an additional assessment;
• encountered an editorial backlog.

The author can reasonably send a polite inquiry.

Important point

“Minor revision” is encouraging, but it is not the same as formal acceptance unless the decision letter explicitly states otherwise.

Wait for the journal’s official decision before describing the article as accepted.

Practical Example 3: The Journal Does Not Respond to Two Inquiries

An early-career researcher submits a major revision.

Four months pass.

A polite inquiry receives no reply.

Ten days later, the author sends a brief follow-up.

Another two weeks pass without a response.

Reasonable next step

The author should identify the journal’s formal editorial-office or publisher-support route rather than continuing to email the same person indefinitely.

For example, Springer Nature directs authors with submission or peer-review questions to the contact option associated with the relevant journal.

If the delay continues, the researcher can then evaluate whether to keep waiting or formally request withdrawal.

Why this is better than immediate withdrawal

The researcher first distinguishes a possible communication failure from a genuine editorial dead end.

Practical Example 4: A Publication Deadline Is Approaching

A PhD scholar needs evidence of manuscript progress for an institutional review.

The revised paper has been under review for 100 days.

Appropriate approach

The researcher can mention the genuine institutional timeline without demanding a favorable decision:

“I would be grateful for any update you are able to provide, as I am preparing documentation for my doctoral progress review.”

This gives the editor useful context while respecting editorial independence.

How Long Should You Wait After Sending a Status Inquiry?

There is no universal waiting period.

The appropriate interval depends on:

• the journal’s contact guidance;
• whether automated acknowledgement was received;
• publisher support timelines;
• urgency;
• whether the editor or office previously promised a response date.

As a practical communication principle, avoid sending repeated messages within a very short interval unless an urgent factual correction or ethical issue requires immediate attention.

If the journal gives a specific response window, follow it.

Does First Revision Mean the Paper Is Close to Acceptance?

Not necessarily.

A first revision means that the journal chose to give the authors an opportunity to address concerns rather than ending consideration at the previous decision point.

That can be encouraging, but the significance depends heavily on the decision letter.

A minor revision and a major revision can represent very different levels of remaining uncertainty.

Wiley’s peer-review guidance describes editorial outcomes that can include acceptance, acceptance subject to revisions, or rejection and notes that decision letters specify required changes when revision is requested.

After resubmission, reviewers or editors can determine that:

• concerns were satisfactorily resolved;
• some issues remain;
• additional revision is needed;
• new concerns emerged;
• the paper should not be accepted.

Therefore, use the waiting period to prepare professionally for any legitimate outcome.

Productive Things to Do While the Manuscript Is Under Review

Waiting does not have to mean repeatedly checking the submission dashboard.

You can:

• organize your raw data and analysis files;
• verify that records needed for potential questions remain accessible;
• prepare supplementary material;
• continue related but distinct research;
• maintain your literature-monitoring process;
• note newly published studies that may become relevant if another revision is requested;
• prepare conference or thesis work where journal policy permits;
• review your response-to-reviewers document for your own records.

Do not alter data or retrospectively modify the research record merely to make the manuscript easier to defend.

Researchers remain responsible for the accuracy of their claims, data, analysis, citations, interpretation, and final manuscript.

Manuscript Follow-Up Checklist

Before contacting the journal, check the following:

• I have confirmed the exact date on which the first revision was submitted.
• I have recorded the manuscript ID.
• I have reread the editor’s revision letter.
• I have checked whether the editor said the paper would undergo another review.
• I have checked the journal’s published review or decision information.
• I have reviewed the manuscript status in the official submission system.
• I have checked my email and spam folder for editorial correspondence.
• My inquiry is polite and concise.
• My message does not pressure the editor for acceptance.
• I have included the manuscript ID and revision date.
• I have not contacted reviewers directly.
• I have kept a record of correspondence.
• If I am considering withdrawal, I have checked the journal’s withdrawal instructions.
• I will not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to another journal.

How Contentxprtz Can Support a Revised Journal Manuscript

A long review period sometimes leads researchers to revisit their manuscript, response letter, or publication strategy—particularly if another revision arrives.

Professional editorial support can be useful when the challenge concerns clarity, presentation, response structure, journal formatting, or communication, rather than replacing the researcher’s intellectual responsibility.

Contentxprtz’s supplied service scope includes academic editing, research-paper editing, publication support, journal-submission assistance, and reviewer-response support.

For example, support may help an author:

• review whether each reviewer comment has been answered clearly;
• improve the organization of a point-by-point response;
• identify language that sounds defensive or ambiguous;
• strengthen clarity in a revised manuscript;
• check consistency between changes described in the response letter and changes actually made in the paper;
• proofread a manuscript before another revision is submitted;
• review journal-specific formatting requirements.

Researchers who receive another substantial revision can explore Contentxprtz research paper editing support for assistance with language, structure, and presentation.

Such support should improve communication without fabricating evidence, changing results to satisfy reviewers, inventing citations, or replacing the researcher’s intellectual contribution. Authors remain responsible for their research and final submission.

Summary: What to Do When a Revised Journal Submission Is Under Review for More Than Three Months

When a journal submission remains Under Review for more than three months after the first revision, do not immediately assume that the article has been rejected, forgotten, or accepted.

First:

1. Confirm the revised-submission date.
2. Review the first decision letter.
3. Check the journal’s normal review information.
4. Examine the current submission status.
5. Send a polite status inquiry.
6. Allow a reasonable period for a reply.
7. Follow up once if necessary.
8. Contact the editorial office or official publisher-support route if communication fails.
9. Consider formal withdrawal only if continued delay is no longer acceptable.
10. Do not submit the manuscript simultaneously to another journal.

Three months is long enough to justify a professional inquiry, but review duration varies considerably by journal. Publisher status terminology also differs, so the words “Under Review” cannot by themselves tell you exactly what is happening.

The strongest approach is patient but active: document the timeline, communicate professionally, and make decisions based on verified information rather than speculation.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is to be done with a journal submission stuck with under review for more than three months after the first revision?

Send a polite manuscript-status inquiry after first checking the journal’s stated review timelines, your revision confirmation, and the submission system.

Include the manuscript ID, date of revised submission, and a brief request for an update. There is generally no need to complain or request withdrawal in the first message.

Three months does not represent a universal deadline because peer-review duration varies between journals, and reviewer availability can affect timing.

If your inquiry receives no response, follow up through the journal’s official editorial-office or publisher contact route.

2. Is three months under review after a revision normal?

It can be.

A three-month second review may be longer than expected for some journals but entirely possible for others. The time required depends on the journal, field, extent of revision, reviewer availability, and editorial process.

Major revisions are especially likely to require substantial reassessment.

Instead of deciding whether the delay is “normal” based only on a general internet estimate, compare your case with the specific journal’s published information and previous correspondence.

If more than three months have passed without any update, a courteous inquiry is reasonable.

3. Does “Under Review” mean the revised paper has definitely been sent to external reviewers?

Not in every journal system.

Elsevier’s current Editorial Manager documentation describes Under Review as the stage where reviewers have been invited and peer review is underway. Wiley’s author platform uses the term more broadly for a stage that can encompass editorial review as well as potential external review.

Therefore, do not assume the dashboard tells you exactly who currently has the paper.

Journal-specific guidance is more reliable than generic interpretations of a status label.

4. Should I email the editor after three months?

Yes, if the revised manuscript has been under consideration for more than three months and you have received no meaningful update, a professional inquiry is reasonable.

Keep it concise.

Mention:

• manuscript ID;
• revised-submission date;
• current status;
• your request for an update.

Avoid demanding an immediate decision or implying that the journal owes you acceptance because you completed the requested revision.

5. How often should I contact the journal about a delayed manuscript?

Contact the journal when there is a reasonable reason to request information, not every few days.

After sending a status inquiry, allow the journal an appropriate period to respond based on its contact guidance. If no response arrives, one concise follow-up is usually more appropriate than repeated daily messages.

If the individual editor remains unresponsive, use the editorial-office or publisher-support route rather than repeatedly sending the same email.

Keep a record of every inquiry.

6. Is a long second review a good sign for acceptance?

Not reliably.

A long review can occur because reviewers are difficult to secure, a report is overdue, reviewers disagree, another expert opinion is required, or the editor needs additional time.

None of those possibilities reliably predicts acceptance.

Similarly, a fast decision is not automatically negative.

Treat the manuscript as undecided until the journal sends the formal decision letter.

7. Can I withdraw the paper if the journal takes too long?

Yes, authors can request withdrawal, but the journal’s withdrawal procedure should be followed carefully.

Before withdrawing, consider contacting the editorial office and explaining the delay concern. If you decide to proceed, clearly identify the manuscript and request formal withdrawal.

Springer Nature advises authors who want to move elsewhere because a review has taken much longer than expected to notify the editors and obtain confirmation of withdrawal before submitting to another journal.

Always review the specific journal’s policy.

8. Can I submit the manuscript to another journal while waiting for the first journal?

You generally should not simultaneously submit the same manuscript to another journal while it remains under consideration.

ICMJE explicitly advises against simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal because it can cause multiple journals to unknowingly undertake duplicate editorial and peer-review work.

If you no longer want the first journal to consider the paper, follow the appropriate withdrawal process before pursuing another journal.

9. What should I do if the editor never responds?

First verify that you used the correct contact channel.

Then:

1. send one concise follow-up;
2. contact the journal’s editorial office;
3. use the publisher’s official manuscript-support route;
4. document your correspondence;
5. assess whether formal withdrawal is appropriate if the problem continues.

Springer Nature, for example, directs manuscript-under-review questions to the journal’s official contact facility.

If you eventually escalate a procedural complaint, keep it factual and preserve the correspondence supporting your concern.

10. Should I get professional editing support while waiting for the next decision?

It can be useful when you anticipate another revision or want help improving language, response structure, manuscript clarity, or journal-specific presentation.

However, editing should not replace your responsibility for the research itself. You remain responsible for the data, methodology, analysis, interpretation, claims, and references.

Professional support is most appropriate when it helps communicate your research accurately and respond clearly to editorial or reviewer feedback.

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

A journal manuscript remaining under review for more than three months after its first revision can be frustrating, particularly when publication progress affects a doctorate, research project, career milestone, or funding requirement. But a lengthy second review should not be interpreted automatically as good news or bad news.

The most useful response is structured.

Check the journal’s workflow. Confirm your dates. Re-read the decision letter. Review the status portal. Then send a concise and courteous inquiry once the delay is substantial enough to justify one.

Remember that a first revision does not guarantee acceptance. The editor may send the paper back to reviewers, seek additional expertise, wait for an overdue report, or conduct further editorial assessment. Publisher guidance also confirms that status labels and peer-review timelines vary between journals.

If communication fails, escalate through appropriate editorial-office and publisher channels rather than through repeated emails or informal contact with reviewers.

If the delay eventually becomes unacceptable, withdrawal can be considered—but the transition to another journal should be managed carefully to avoid simultaneous submission.

Finally, if another revision arrives, focus on the part you can control: the quality of your response, the accuracy of the manuscript, the clarity of your explanations, and the strength of your academic communication. Where language or structural review would be useful, professional research paper editing support can help refine communication while preserving the researcher’s ownership and responsibility for the work.

“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”