Few months ago, I have submitted my manuscript to a very reputed journal. After 80 days, I got the first decision (major revision) with very simple comments from 3 reviewers. The status in the last 15 days was "Awaiting Editors Decision".

After submitting the revised version, I am still waiting for almost 3 months with one status "In peer review". Up to my knowledge, the second round should be shorter than the first one. In addition, I checked published papers in the same journal, where the second round was very short in all of them.

I am wondering, what is heppening with my submission.

  • 3
    I've taken longer reviewing a revision than the original manuscript before, in part because I was busier with other things when I got the revision. Also note, reviewing major revisions takes more time than minor revisions. What is a normal amount of time to get referee reports in your field?
    – Kimball
    May 20, 2017 at 16:39
  • Usually, it takes from one to 3 months maximum. However, I've never experienced such a long time for the second round.
    – Yacine
    May 20, 2017 at 16:45
  • 1
    One possibility is that the reviewers were able to handle the original version fast because it was clear that certain parts needed to be revised. Once they noticed that, they may not have bothered to read those parts in detail, because they knew they would change. Now that the revisions are made, they actually have to read everything in detail, and it takes longer. May 20, 2017 at 22:26
  • Additional revision (major) are not accepted by this journal [Please also note that, under the ***** editorial policy, revised papers that require a further revision will be rejected], so I think reviewers must find all critical points in the first round. In addition, one time I reviewed a paper and I asked the author in the second round to do additional experiment, I got an answer from the editor that it is not allowed to ask for new things (wasting authors' time).
    – Yacine
    May 20, 2017 at 22:43

1 Answer 1


Lots of things can happen to delay the review process. For instance, heavy teaching commitments in the winter can slow things down, although they should now be over. Also, there really should be no correlation between the reviewing times for an original submission and a resubmit after major revision. The referee has to essentially start from scratch.

But after three months, I would say you are entitled to a polite reminder letter to the editor.


You must log in to answer this question.

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