When Is It Appropriate to Ping an Editor Regarding a Journal Submission?

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Submitting a journal manuscript can create an unusual kind of academic uncertainty. Your part of the process may have taken months or years—designing the study, collecting data, analysing results, drafting the paper, checking references, responding to co-authors, and finally clicking “Submit.” Then, suddenly, control shifts to an editorial system whose status messages may remain unchanged for days or weeks.

That is why researchers frequently ask: When is it appropriate to ping an editor regarding a journal submission?

The most useful answer is not “after two weeks,” “after one month,” or any other universal number. You should normally contact the journal when the manuscript has remained at the same stage materially longer than the journal’s stated or usual timeline, when the submission system indicates that author action may be required, or when you have a legitimate time-sensitive or technical reason to communicate. Before emailing, check the manuscript-tracking system, the journal’s author instructions, and any stated first-decision or peer-review times.

Major publishers encourage authors to use their submission dashboards to follow manuscript progress. Springer Nature, for example, provides online manuscript-status tracking, while Elsevier explains that corresponding authors can monitor manuscript status through its editorial system. Delays can arise because editors are assessing scope, locating suitable reviewers, waiting for reviewer reports, or resolving conflicting reviews.

For a first-time researcher, however, the distinction between a normal delay and a delay worth questioning is not always obvious. “With Editor” for two weeks may be completely routine at one journal but unusual at another. An “Under Review” status may remain unchanged while reviewer invitations, reminders, replacements, and reports are being handled behind the scenes.

The goal, therefore, is not to avoid contacting editors. Authors are allowed to make reasonable enquiries. The goal is to communicate at the right time, through the right channel, with the right tone—without creating unnecessary correspondence or appearing to pressure an editor into making a particular decision.

This guide explains how to judge that point, how to interpret common manuscript statuses, when earlier contact is justified, how often to follow up, and how to write a concise professional status enquiry.

Quick Answer: When Is It Appropriate to Ping an Editor Regarding a Journal Submission?

It is generally appropriate to ping an editor after the journal’s stated expected timeline for the current stage has passed, particularly if your manuscript status has not changed and the submission system provides no explanation.

Start by checking your author dashboard. Many publishers allow authors to monitor whether a paper is undergoing technical checks, awaiting editor assignment, with an editor, under peer review, awaiting a decision, or requiring author action. Springer Nature specifically advises submitting authors to track manuscript progress online, and Elsevier similarly allows corresponding authors to follow manuscript status through its editorial system.

Do not assume that an unchanged status means nothing is happening. Reviewer recruitment can take time, editors may be assessing a manuscript outside the visible workflow, and additional reviewers may be required. Elsevier notes that reviewer availability and conflicting reviewer reports can lengthen the process.

Contact the journal earlier when there is a genuine problem—for example, you never received submission confirmation, an important file is missing, you identify a serious error that the journal needs to know about, or the editorial office asks you to get in touch. Otherwise, use the journal’s published timing expectations as your primary benchmark.

Key Takeaways

• There is no universal waiting period that applies to every journal, discipline, or manuscript.
• Check the online submission system before sending a status enquiry.
• Compare the manuscript’s current waiting time with the journal’s published first-decision or review timeline where available.
• “With Editor” or “Under Review” does not necessarily mean the manuscript has been forgotten.
• Contact the editorial office earlier for genuine technical, ethical, authorship, file, or submission problems.
• A status enquiry should be brief, courteous, factual, and include the manuscript ID.
• One well-timed enquiry is usually more appropriate than repeatedly emailing different editors.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• how journal submission workflows normally progress;
• how to decide whether your manuscript has been waiting unusually long;
• what common manuscript status labels may mean;
• when an immediate or earlier email may be justified;
• how to write a polite journal-status enquiry;
• common follow-up mistakes researchers should avoid;
• how to decide whether a second follow-up is appropriate.

Table of Contents

1. The Best Rule for Deciding When to Contact an Editor
2. Methodology and Academic Sources
3. What Happens After Journal Submission?
4. What Common Manuscript Statuses Mean
5. A Practical Timing Guide
6. Situations Where You Should Contact the Journal Earlier
7. How to Ping an Editor Professionally
8. Sample Journal Status Enquiry
9. How Often Should You Follow Up?
10. Practical Researcher Scenarios
11. Common Mistakes to Avoid
12. Journal Follow-Up Checklist
13. How Contentxprtz Can Support Researchers
14. Summary
15. Frequently Asked Questions
16. About the Author
17. Conclusion

The Best Rule for Deciding When to Contact an Editor

Use the journal’s own timeline—not your anxiety level—as the main trigger for a status enquiry.

If a journal says that the typical time to first decision is several weeks, contacting the editor only a few days after submission is unlikely to provide useful information unless something has gone wrong technically.

Springer Nature notes that turnaround time can vary according to factors such as the journal’s workflow, the availability of an editor with appropriate expertise, editorial workload, and journal policies. It also advises authors that average first-decision timing may be available on the journal homepage.

Elsevier similarly explains that peer review may take longer because an editor must locate independent reviewers with suitable expertise and because reviewers have competing professional commitments.

A sensible decision process is therefore:

1. Check the manuscript status.
2. Check the journal’s published processing or first-decision timeline.
3. Check your most recent correspondence for requested action.
4. Consider how long the manuscript has remained at its current stage.
5. Contact the journal if the expected period has clearly been exceeded or another legitimate reason exists.

This approach is more defensible than following a rigid internet rule such as “always email after 14 days.”

Methodology and Academic Sources

The guidance in this article is based on established scholarly publishing workflows and current author information from major academic publishers. Individual journals can have substantially different editorial systems, turnaround times, staffing arrangements, and peer-review procedures.

Useful primary sources include:

• Springer Nature manuscript-status guidance, which explains how submitting authors can monitor manuscript progress.
• Elsevier’s submission and awaiting-decision guidance, which describes editorial screening, reviewer selection, tracking, and decision-making.
• Taylor & Francis guidance on Editorial Manager, which explains author-dashboard functions and communication options.
• SAGE’s guidance for journal authors, which advises authors seeking the status of a submitted paper to contact the relevant journal directly.

Always prioritise the instructions of the specific journal to which you submitted. Publisher-wide guidance is useful, but individual journal policies remain controlling.

What Happens After You Submit a Journal Manuscript?

A journal manuscript rarely moves directly from submission to peer review.

A typical workflow may include:

Submission confirmation → technical or administrative check → editor assignment → editorial assessment → reviewer invitation → peer review → editor assessment of reviews → editorial decision

Springer Nature describes an editorial sequence that includes initial quality checks, editor assignment, peer review, and an editorial decision.

Elsevier similarly explains that an editor may first assess whether the paper fits the journal’s scope and meets its threshold for further evaluation. If it proceeds, independent reviewers are then selected and invited. After the reports arrive, the editor assesses them and may request further review if reports conflict.

This explains why manuscript dashboards sometimes appear inactive even when work is taking place behind the scenes.

For example, “Under Review” may conceal several separate activities:

• one reviewer has accepted;
• another reviewer has declined;
• a replacement reviewer is being sought;
• one review has arrived;
• another review is overdue;
• the editor is sending reminders;
• an additional specialist opinion is needed.

The submission system may not display every one of these events to the author.

What Do Common Manuscript Statuses Mean?

Status terminology differs across publishers, so never interpret a label without checking the specific journal’s documentation.

Springer Nature’s tracking information identifies stages such as editor assignment, reviewers invited, reviewers accepted, reviews received, revision, rejection, and acceptance.

Submission Received

The manuscript has entered the journal system.

You should normally receive confirmation and a manuscript reference number. Elsevier notes that completed submissions receive a reference number that authors can use when checking status.

If you have no confirmation and the dashboard does not show a completed submission, investigate promptly rather than waiting weeks.

Technical Check or Initial Quality Check

Editorial staff may be checking files, declarations, authorship information, ethics documentation, figures, formatting, or other submission requirements.

This is normally an administrative stage rather than peer review.

Editor Assigned

The journal has allocated your manuscript to an editor or is finalising editorial assignment.

Springer Nature explains that editor assignment can be affected by subject expertise, workload, journal procedures, and other journal-specific considerations.

With Editor

This often means that an editor is assessing the submission, deciding whether it is suitable for external review, assigning another editor, or taking another editorial action.

Elsevier explicitly states that “With Editor” can mean an editor has been assigned but has not yet performed an action that changes the system status.

A week or two at this stage is therefore not automatically a warning sign.

Reviewers Invited

Potential reviewers have been approached.

This stage can take longer than authors expect because specialists may decline invitations or fail to respond.

Under Review

At least part of the peer-review process is underway.

Do not assume that every reviewer started on the same day or that all requested reports will arrive simultaneously.

Reviews Received

Reviewer reports have reached the journal, although the editor may still need to assess them, seek an additional report, or consult another editor before making a decision.

Decision in Process or Awaiting Editor Decision

The journal appears to have reached the editorial decision-making stage.

This status can still require time because the handling editor may need to reconcile conflicting reports or obtain senior editorial input.

Revision Requested

The journal needs action from you.

At this point, the priority is not to ask for a status update but to read the decision letter carefully and prepare the required revision within the stated deadline.

A Practical Guide to When You Should Ping the Editor

The following table is a decision aid, not a universal journal rule.

Situation	Usually Appropriate to Ping?	Better Next Step
Submitted a few days ago and confirmation is visible	Usually no	Monitor the dashboard
No confirmation or manuscript ID after apparently submitting	Yes	Check the system and contact technical/editorial support
“With Editor” but still within the journal’s stated first-decision period	Usually no	Continue waiting
Current stage has exceeded the journal’s published timeline	Reasonable	Send one concise status enquiry
“Under Review” for a long period but still near the journal’s normal review time	Usually wait	Recheck published guidance
Review has substantially exceeded the normal stated timeframe	Reasonable	Ask politely for an update
Serious file or factual problem discovered after submission	Yes	Contact the journal promptly
Need to change authorship information	Contact journal according to policy	Do not modify informally or resubmit
Personal deadline approaching	Possibly	Explain the deadline without demanding expedited acceptance
You emailed a few days ago and received no reply	Usually no	Allow a reasonable response period before following up

The practical takeaway is simple: elapsed time matters only in context.

Thirty days may represent a delay for one journal and a normal editorial interval for another.

When Should You Contact the Journal Earlier?

There are circumstances in which waiting for the ordinary review timeline is not appropriate.

1. You Never Received Submission Confirmation

Confirm first that the manuscript was actually submitted.

Oxford Academic journal instructions, for example, explain in one submission workflow that authors receive confirmation and a manuscript number after successful submission; if that confirmation is absent, the submission may not have been completed.

2. You Discover a Serious Submission Error

Contact the editorial office when you discover a meaningful problem such as:

• an essential figure is missing;
• the wrong manuscript version was uploaded;
• a supplementary file is corrupted;
• important authorship information is incorrect;
• an ethics declaration requires correction;
• the submitted manuscript contains a substantial factual error.

Do not create a duplicate submission merely to correct the problem. One Oxford Academic submission guide specifically instructs authors who discover an error after submission to contact the editorial office rather than submit the paper again.

3. The Journal Requests Information

Respond promptly whenever the editorial office contacts you for clarification, documentation, formatting changes, declarations, or files.

Waiting because the manuscript is supposedly “under review” may unnecessarily delay processing.

4. An Authorship Issue Arises

Authorship changes can be sensitive and may require agreement from co-authors and editorial approval.

Journal policies differ, so consult the relevant author instructions rather than changing the manuscript informally. Oxford Academic examples explicitly require substantive reasons and editorial involvement for post-submission authorship changes.

5. You Have a Genuine Time-Sensitive Circumstance

Perhaps you need to report the manuscript’s status for:

• a thesis examination;
• a funding report;
• an institutional deadline;
• a fellowship application;
• completion of an employment dossier.

You may explain this situation politely. However, informing an editor about your deadline does not create an obligation for the journal to accelerate peer review or alter its editorial decision.

How to Ping an Editor Professionally

A good status enquiry should make the editor’s job easier.

Step 1: Use the Correct Contact Channel

Check:

• the submission portal;
• the journal’s author instructions;
• the editorial-office contact page;
• recent correspondence from the manuscript system.

Some journals prefer enquiries through the submission platform rather than personal email.

SAGE directs authors seeking the status of a submitted manuscript to contact the relevant journal using the contact information on that journal’s webpage.

Step 2: Use a Clear Subject Line

For example:

Status enquiry: Manuscript CX-2026-0147

or:

Manuscript status enquiry – [Short Title] – ID [Number]

Step 3: Identify the Manuscript Immediately

Include:

• manuscript ID;
• manuscript title;
• corresponding author;
• submission or revision date.

Do not make the editor search through several paragraphs to identify the paper.

Step 4: State the Request Briefly

A simple question is enough:

I am writing to enquire whether there is any update regarding the current status of our manuscript.

You do not need a lengthy explanation of how important the paper is.

Step 5: Acknowledge the Editorial Process

A short phrase showing that you understand peer review takes time can help maintain an appropriately professional tone.

Step 6: Do Not Pressure the Editor

Avoid phrases such as:

• “I need a decision immediately.”
• “Why is my paper taking so long?”
• “Please tell the reviewers to finish.”
• “My manuscript should already have been accepted.”
• “I emailed last week and demand an answer.”

Your purpose is to obtain information, not to influence the editorial outcome.

Sample Email for a Journal Submission Status Enquiry

Subject: Status enquiry – Manuscript ID [Manuscript Number]

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

I am writing to enquire about the current status of our manuscript, “[Full Manuscript Title]” (Manuscript ID: [ID]), submitted on [date].

The submission system currently shows the manuscript as “[status].” As the manuscript has now been at this stage for [period], I would be grateful for any update you are able to provide regarding its progress.

I appreciate the time required for editorial assessment and peer review, and I understand that timelines can vary depending on reviewer availability and other editorial considerations.

Please let me know if any information or action is required from our side.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Kind regards,
[Full Name]
Corresponding Author
[Institution]

The strength of this email is its restraint. It tells the journal exactly which manuscript you are asking about, explains why you are enquiring, and gives the editor an opportunity to identify any required action.

How Often Should You Follow Up?

Do not repeatedly contact the journal at short intervals.

If you have sent a reasonable status enquiry, allow the editorial office time to respond. Journals may be managing hundreds or thousands of submissions, and an immediate reply may not be possible.

If no response arrives after a reasonable interval, a second concise follow-up may be appropriate.

A useful second message can simply reference the first:

I am following up on my email of [date] regarding manuscript [ID]. I would be grateful for any update when convenient.

Avoid sending separate messages simultaneously to:

• the editor-in-chief;
• handling editor;
• managing editor;
• publisher;
• journal administrator;

unless the journal’s procedures specifically require escalation.

Multiple parallel enquiries can create confusion rather than speed.

Practical Examples

Example 1: Ten Days With Editor

A researcher submits a manuscript. After technical checks, its status becomes “With Editor.” Ten days later, nothing has changed.

The journal states that first decisions commonly take substantially longer than ten days.

Best response: Wait.

The manuscript is still comfortably within the journal’s expected window. Elsevier explains that “With Editor” can cover several legitimate editorial activities before another status is triggered.

Example 2: The Journal’s Expected Decision Period Has Passed

A manuscript has remained in editorial processing substantially beyond the journal’s stated expected first-decision period.

Best response: A polite status enquiry is reasonable.

The researcher does not need to accuse the journal of delay. A neutral question asking whether further information is required is sufficient.

Example 3: Peer Review Is Taking Longer Than Expected

A paper is “Under Review.” The author knows reviewers may need substantial time, but the manuscript has now exceeded the journal’s normal published timeframe.

Best response: Contact the editorial office once.

Peer review can be delayed by reviewer availability, declined invitations, overdue reports, or the need for additional review. Elsevier identifies reviewer availability and conflicting reports as factors that can extend the process.

Example 4: Wrong Supplementary File Uploaded

An author realises one day after submission that the supplementary dataset is the wrong version.

Best response: Contact the journal immediately.

This is not a manuscript-status enquiry. It is a submission-correction issue, and waiting several weeks would make the problem harder to address.

Example 5: Fellowship Deadline Approaching

A researcher has a fellowship application due soon and would benefit from knowing whether the manuscript has progressed.

Best response: If a status enquiry is otherwise reasonable, the researcher may mention the deadline briefly.

However, write:

“If possible, I would be grateful for any information about the manuscript’s current status, as I have a fellowship reporting deadline on [date].”

Do not write:

“Please make a decision before my fellowship deadline.”

The first asks for information. The second attempts to impose an external deadline on the journal.

Should You Email the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Office?

Use the contact route specified by the journal.

For administrative status questions, the editorial office or managing-editor contact may be more appropriate than directly emailing the editor-in-chief.

Springer Nature directs submission-related enquiries to the appropriate journal editorial office or submission contact.

SAGE likewise advises authors who want a paper-status update to get in touch with the journal directly using its published contact information.

If the manuscript system offers a built-in “Send Email” or contact function, using it can also help ensure your message remains connected to the submission record. Taylor & Francis notes that Editorial Manager provides author-side email options in relevant workflows.

When a Long Delay Does Not Necessarily Mean Something Is Wrong

Researchers understandably worry that a long wait indicates rejection, neglect, or a problem with the manuscript.

That conclusion is often premature.

Possible reasons include:

• difficulty finding reviewers;
• reviewers declining invitations;
• overdue reports;
• editor workload;
• specialist subject matter;
• conflicting reviews;
• need for an additional reviewer;
• editorial consultation;
• differences in journal workflow.

Springer Nature specifically identifies expertise matching, editor workload, journal process, and journal policies as factors affecting turnaround time.

Elsevier similarly notes that reviewer availability and reviewer schedules affect review duration.

A delay can therefore be frustrating without necessarily signalling a problem with your paper.

Common Mistakes When Contacting a Journal Editor

Mistake 1: Following an Arbitrary Internet Rule

Problem: “Someone told me always to email after two weeks.”

Better approach: Check the specific journal’s published timeline and manuscript status.

Mistake 2: Emailing Too Soon

Problem: Contacting the journal a few days after submission even though everything appears normal.

Better approach: Allow routine technical and editorial processing to occur.

Mistake 3: Writing an Emotional Message

Problem: Describing anxiety, anger, or frustration at length.

Better approach: Keep the correspondence factual and professional.

Mistake 4: Demanding a Decision

Problem: Asking the editor to accept, reject, or decide immediately.

Better approach: Ask for information about progress, not a preferred result.

Mistake 5: Omitting the Manuscript ID

Problem: The journal must search manually for the submission.

Better approach: Put the manuscript number in both the subject line and message.

Mistake 6: Contacting Several Editors at Once

Problem: Multiple recipients may duplicate work or provide conflicting replies.

Better approach: Start with the journal’s designated contact.

Mistake 7: Treating Reviewer Delay as Editor Negligence

Problem: Assuming the editor controls every part of reviewer behaviour.

Better approach: Recognise that external reviewers may decline, become unavailable, or submit reports late.

Mistake 8: Sending a Second Submission

Problem: Resubmitting because the author thinks the first submission is stuck.

Better approach: Contact the journal if there is a genuine technical problem.

Journal Submission Follow-Up Checklist

Before you contact an editor, ask yourself:

• Have I confirmed that the manuscript was successfully submitted?
• Do I have the correct manuscript ID?
• Have I checked the current status in the author dashboard?
• Have I read the journal’s author instructions?
• Does the journal publish a typical first-decision or review timeframe?
• Has my manuscript meaningfully exceeded that timeframe?
• Have I checked recent emails for requests from the editorial office?
• Is there a genuine technical, ethical, authorship, or file-related issue?
• Am I contacting the correct journal representative?
• Is my message short and professional?
• Have I avoided demanding a decision or acceptance?
• Have I clearly stated the manuscript title, ID, and submission date?
• If I contacted the journal previously, have I allowed reasonable time for a reply?

If most of the relevant boxes are checked, your enquiry is much more likely to be timely and useful.

What If the Journal Status Has Not Changed for Months?

A manuscript that remains unchanged for months deserves closer investigation, particularly when the journal’s usual processing time is much shorter.

Start by confirming:

1. the manuscript is still active;
2. no journal email went to spam;
3. the submission system is not requesting author action;
4. the journal has not published a relevant delay notice;
5. your previous enquiry reached the correct address.

Then send a concise status request.

If repeated reasonable enquiries receive no response and the delay is far beyond the journal’s stated norms, consult the journal or publisher’s formal contact, complaint, or withdrawal procedure rather than simply resubmitting the paper elsewhere.

Withdrawal deserves particular care because simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to another journal while it remains under consideration may conflict with journal policies. Follow the target journal’s formal withdrawal procedure before submitting the same manuscript elsewhere.

Should You Withdraw a Manuscript Because Peer Review Is Slow?

Usually not solely because you are impatient.

Withdrawal can be appropriate in some circumstances, but it should be a considered decision rather than an emotional response to an unchanged dashboard.

Before requesting withdrawal:

• obtain a status update;
• review the journal’s expected timeline;
• discuss the matter with co-authors;
• consider how long restarting at another journal may take;
• read the journal’s withdrawal instructions.

Elsevier states that authors who no longer wish to proceed can request withdrawal through Editorial Manager or by contacting the editor. Springer Nature also directs authors seeking withdrawal of a completed submission to the appropriate journal editorial office or submission contact.

Do not assume that simply emailing “I withdraw” and immediately submitting elsewhere is sufficient in every workflow. Obtain or follow the journal’s formal confirmation process where required.

How Contentxprtz Can Support Researchers Before and During Journal Submission

Professional academic support can be useful when the difficulty is not merely waiting for an editorial decision but ensuring that the manuscript itself communicates the research clearly.

Contentxprtz is positioned as an academic editing, research support, and publication-assistance provider serving researchers and academic authors, with support including research-paper editing and journal-submission-related services.

For researchers preparing a manuscript, appropriate support may involve:

• language and clarity editing;
• academic proofreading;
• structural review;
• reference and formatting checks;
• journal-specific manuscript preparation;
• reviewing a revised manuscript after peer-review comments;
• improving the clarity of an author response letter.

Researchers who need manuscript-level assistance can explore Contentxprtz’s research paper editing service or broader research paper services.

Where the challenge concerns submission preparation or responding appropriately during the publication process, journal publication support may also be relevant.

Such assistance should support communication, presentation, and responsible publication preparation. Researchers remain responsible for their research, data, arguments, citations, methodology, interpretations, authorship decisions, and final submission. Editing should strengthen communication rather than replace the researcher’s intellectual contribution.

Summary: When Is It Appropriate to Ping an Editor Regarding a Journal Submission?

Ping the editor or journal when the manuscript has clearly exceeded the expected timeline for its current stage, when the submission system indicates a problem, or when you have a legitimate reason that requires editorial attention.

Do not rely on a universal number of days.

Instead:

• check the submission dashboard;
• check the journal’s stated turnaround time;
• identify the manuscript’s current stage;
• confirm that the journal is not waiting for you;
• contact the designated editorial office or editor;
• include your manuscript ID;
• ask for an update rather than demanding a decision;
• wait a reasonable period before sending another enquiry.

Major publishers provide author-facing tracking mechanisms precisely because manuscripts move through multiple editorial stages. Springer Nature and Elsevier both advise authors to monitor manuscript progress through their respective systems, while journal publishers including SAGE provide routes for authors to request status information where necessary.

A polite status enquiry is a normal part of scholarly communication when it is timely and proportionate.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. When is it appropriate to ping an editor regarding a journal submission?

It is appropriate when your manuscript has remained at its current stage materially longer than the journal’s stated or usual processing period, or when you have a genuine technical or time-sensitive issue that requires attention.

First check the submission system. Springer Nature and Elsevier both provide mechanisms through which submitting or corresponding authors can monitor manuscript progress.

If the manuscript is still within the journal’s normal timeframe, waiting is usually more appropriate. If the expected timeframe has clearly passed, send one polite status enquiry containing the manuscript title, ID, submission date, and current status.

The important principle is context rather than an arbitrary number of days. A four-week wait may be unusual at one journal and entirely normal at another.

2. Is it rude to ask a journal editor for an update?

No. A professionally written status enquiry is not inherently rude.

Academic journals expect authors to need information about manuscripts from time to time. SAGE, for example, explicitly tells authors seeking the status of a submitted paper to contact the relevant journal.

What matters is how you communicate.

A suitable message asks whether an update is available and provides the manuscript ID. An unsuitable message criticises the editor, demands a decision, pressures reviewers, or repeatedly emails at short intervals.

Keep the enquiry short, factual, and courteous. Editors generally need identification details and a clear question—not a lengthy account of how stressful the waiting period has been.

3. How long should I wait when my manuscript says “With Editor”?

There is no universal waiting period for “With Editor.”

The label may mean that an editor is assessing the manuscript, considering whether it should proceed to peer review, assigning another editor, or taking another action that has not yet changed the visible status. Elsevier specifically explains that “With Editor” can remain until an editor performs an action that triggers a new system status.

Therefore, compare the elapsed time with the journal’s published first-decision information where available.

If the paper has only recently moved to “With Editor,” a status enquiry is often premature. If it has remained there substantially beyond the journal’s expected decision period, a concise enquiry becomes more reasonable.

4. Should I email the editor if my manuscript is “Under Review” for a long time?

Yes, if the review period has substantially exceeded the journal’s expected timeframe.

However, an unchanged “Under Review” label does not necessarily indicate inactivity. Reviewers may decline invitations, accept at different times, submit reports late, or require replacement. Editors may also request another review when reports disagree.

Elsevier identifies reviewer availability and reviewer schedules as factors affecting review duration and notes that additional review may sometimes be needed when reports conflict.

Before emailing, check whether the journal publishes an expected review or first-decision timeline. If the manuscript is clearly outside that window, ask the editorial office whether there is an update or whether anything is required from you.

5. What should I write in a manuscript status enquiry?

Include only the information needed to identify the manuscript and understand your request:

• manuscript title;
• manuscript ID;
• corresponding author;
• submission or revision date;
• current displayed status;
• a concise request for an update.

A useful sentence is:

“I am writing to enquire whether there is any update regarding the current status of our manuscript.”

You may then note how long the manuscript has been at the current stage.

Avoid defending the importance of your research, repeating your abstract, arguing that the paper deserves acceptance, or asking the editor to pressure reviewers. A status enquiry concerns process, not the merits of the editorial decision.

6. Can I contact the editor before the normal review period has passed?

Yes, when there is a legitimate reason unrelated to ordinary impatience.

Examples include:

• no successful-submission confirmation;
• incorrect or missing files;
• a significant factual error discovered after submission;
• an authorship issue;
• a journal request requiring clarification;
• a genuine administrative deadline for which you need status information.

For example, one Oxford Academic journal’s submission guidance tells authors who discover an error after completing submission to contact the editorial office instead of creating another submission.

In such cases, contacting the journal promptly may prevent a larger problem. Make clear why you are writing so the message is not mistaken for an ordinary request to accelerate peer review.

7. Should I email the editor-in-chief or the journal office?

Follow the contact method specified by the journal.

For routine manuscript-status questions, the editorial office, managing editor, journal administrator, or submission-system contact may be the appropriate first route. Springer Nature directs authors with submission-related enquiries to the relevant journal editorial office or designated submission contact.

Some systems also provide built-in author-to-editor messaging.

Do not automatically copy several senior editors simply because you want a faster response. Start with the designated channel. Escalate only when necessary and in accordance with the publisher’s procedure.

This helps preserve a clear correspondence trail and reduces duplicated administrative work.

8. How soon can I send a second follow-up if the journal does not respond?

Allow a reasonable period for the editorial office to answer before sending another message.

There is no universal number because journal staffing arrangements differ. A small society journal may operate very differently from a large publisher-supported title.

Your second email should be shorter than the first. Reference your previous message, manuscript ID, and original enquiry date, then ask whether an update is available.

Avoid sending daily or near-daily reminders.

If repeated reasonable enquiries receive no response and the manuscript is significantly beyond normal processing time, use the journal or publisher’s official escalation, support, complaint, or withdrawal procedure rather than continually emailing the same individual.

9. Does a long review time mean my manuscript is likely to be rejected?

No. Review duration alone does not reliably tell you what the editorial decision will be.

Long review periods can result from reviewer availability, declined invitations, overdue reports, editor workload, specialist subject matter, additional reviews, or conflicting reports. Springer Nature identifies editorial workload and expertise matching among factors affecting turnaround, while Elsevier notes reviewer availability and scheduling issues.

Likewise, a very fast decision does not necessarily indicate acceptance or rejection until an actual decision letter is issued.

Treat dashboard statuses as workflow information rather than predictions about the outcome.

10. When might professional academic support help during journal submission?

Professional support may be useful when the concern involves manuscript clarity, language, organisation, journal formatting, revision quality, or preparing a clear response to reviewer comments.

It should not be used to manufacture data, fabricate references, misrepresent authorship, or replace the researcher’s intellectual contribution.

If you are unsure whether a manuscript clearly communicates its methods, findings, limitations, or contribution before submission—or if substantial revisions are requested during peer review—an independent editorial review can help identify language and structural problems.

Contentxprtz provides research paper editing support for researchers seeking this kind of manuscript-focused assistance. The researcher should still verify every substantive change and remain responsible for the final work.

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

Knowing when to contact a journal editor is part of learning how scholarly publishing actually works.

The central rule is straightforward: do not treat a fixed number of days as universally correct. Start with the journal’s own information. Check your manuscript dashboard, understand its current stage, review the journal’s expected turnaround time, and confirm that no action is waiting for you.

If your manuscript is still within the normal processing period, patience is usually appropriate.

If the stated timeline has clearly passed, the status has remained unchanged for an unusually long period, or a genuine technical, ethical, authorship, or administrative issue has arisen, a polite enquiry is entirely reasonable.

Keep that message concise. Give the manuscript title and ID. Ask for an update rather than demanding an outcome. Recognise that reviewer recruitment, editorial workload, conflicting reports, and journal-specific workflows can all affect the time required for a decision.

Self-review is often enough when your manuscript is already clear, correctly formatted, and ready for journal assessment. When language, structure, revision quality, or journal-facing communication needs further attention, responsible academic editing can provide an additional layer of review while preserving the author’s ideas and scholarly responsibility.

Researchers looking for manuscript-focused support can review Contentxprtz’s research paper editing service.

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