Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

According to the reviewers, the paper I have submitted is now ready for publication. How long I should wait to know the final decision of the editor-in-chief?

share|improve this question
What do you mean "according to the reviewers"? That is not their call. Who sent you the reviews? Did that not include a decision? – Tobias Kildetoft Aug 1 '14 at 19:28
Did they actually say "ready for publication?" If that is exactly what they said, it sounds a bit like weak praise, short of "suitable for this journal." – Colin McLarty Feb 25 at 1:40

Reviewers can only recommend a verdict so what they say is not necessarily the outcome, the editor has final say. Of course if two reviews agree then it is very likely the outcome will be what they suggest. In a normal review situation involving an editor, the reviewers provide their reviews to the editor who in turn will make a judgement and pass on comments and possible suggestions for improvements to you. If your manuscript is in an open review system (such as the discussion format of Copernicus Open Access journals), you may see the reviews before final decisions are taken and in such a case, I would not trust reviewers opinions on the verdict until you also hear so from the editor.

As is pointed out in a comment, it is a bit intriguing that you seem to have the reviewers comments but not that from the editor. The time between completion of reviews and to a decision by an editor will vary depending on many factors. The editor has to read the reviews in light of the manuscript and then value the comments and provide a synthesis of the outcome for you. Obviously the editor will have other manuscripts to handle in parallel which influences the time a decision may take. To state a time that can be applied to any situation or journal is therefore pointless. I am, however, certain that any serious editor is not keen to hold on to a decision for any extended period. With the journals I have published and the one where I am Editor-in-Chief times from receipt of reviews to decision can vary from maybe days up to a month in rare cases. This seems reasonable for the field in which I work but I am sure that such times vary between both field and journals within a field.

share|improve this answer
Your second paragraph raises a key point: if the referee reports do not ask for revisions, why pass along the referee reports but not the editorial decision? The only possible significance of this is to allow the author to see how long the editorial board is taking to reach its decision. I don't understand why an editor would do this. – Pete L. Clark Aug 2 '14 at 20:49

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.