This is a follow-up question on "Why call it a "major" revision if the suggested changes are seemingly minor?"

I have submitted the revision two weeks ago and it's still showing as "under review." The paper has been under review for 1 year and 9 months. In general, if such scenario happens when should one expect a decision?

  • 8
    I am sympathetic to your situation, but look -- you're not going to get an answer to this kind of question by asking us. Moreover, two weeks after you submitted a revised version is not a good time to ask how much longer it will take. (You could ask, but it is likely that you will not get a very definitive answer.) More than likely you'll have to be a bit patient. Jan 2, 2017 at 3:21
  • 14
    Are you aware what time of the year it is?
    – user9482
    Jan 2, 2017 at 7:11
  • 1
    @Roland: Thanks. I just wanted to know how does in general it takes a minor revision to respond.
    – Anonymous
    Jan 2, 2017 at 11:58

1 Answer 1


2 weeks of review time is really not very long, even for a minor revision (which, strictly speaking, yours apparently isn't, at least not to the editor). There is no way for us to know how long it will still take, but the unfortunate truth is that I see little reason to believe it's gonna be much faster than any previous (major) revision.

In reality, reviewing time often depends little on the actual amount of change. Instead, reviewers often get allotted a fixed amount of time (e.g. 4 to 6 weeks in computer science), and will get around to actually doing the review when this time is almost over. That your paper has been under review for long already is not something that reviewers will be aware of, or care very much about.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .