Peer Review

What do "with editor" and "under review" mean? Manuscript status codes

In short

The status line in submission systems (Editorial Manager, ScholarOne) shows where your paper is in the process, but it may not change for days. The rough journey: Submitted → With Editor/Editor Assigned → Under Review → Required Reviews Completed → Decision in Process → decision. Two traps: (1) 'Under Review' appearing right after submission doesn't mean peer review has started — it's often still the editor's desk check; (2) the status going from 'Under Review' back to 'With Editor' is normal — it has moved to the decision stage. The same stage is named differently across journals. Unless the journal's typical time has clearly passed, there's no need to rush beyond a polite status inquiry.

After submitting your paper, the first thing most researchers do is obsessively refresh the status line in the submission system. Yet that line can stay unchanged for days, sometimes weeks, and phrases like "With Editor" or "Under Review" don't tell you exactly what's happening. This guide explains the common status codes in systems like Editorial Manager and ScholarOne, and the real stage behind each. (Important caveat: the same stage is named differently across journals; the meanings here are the most common usages, and the exact definition lives in each journal's own system.)

Status codes are really a journey

Even though you'll see different names, the underlying process follows nearly the same order at almost every journal:

Submission → Editor desk check → Peer review → Decision

The status line shows which stop your paper is at on this journey. The problem is that systems label those stops with different words.

Common statuses and what they mean

Status (common variants) Which stage What it means
Submitted to Journal / Manuscript Submitted Submission The system received the paper; not assigned to anyone yet.
With Editor / Editor Assigned / Editor Invited Desk check or decision An editor is responsible for the paper; doing a pre-check, or (if late in the process) making a decision.
Under Review / Out for Review Peer review (or desk check) Ideally reviewers are reading it; but if it appeared right after submission, it may still be a pre-check.
Awaiting Reviewer Assignment / Selection / Invited Reviewer assignment The editor is finding or inviting suitable reviewers; no acceptance/report yet.
Awaiting Reviewer Scores Peer review Reviewers accepted the invitation; reports are awaited. Usually the longest stage.
Required Reviews Completed Pre-decision Enough reports are in; the editor is nearing a decision.
Decision in Process / Awaiting Decision / Awaiting EIC Decision Decision The paper is with the editor for a decision; the result hasn't reached the author yet.
Minor / Major Revision Revision A decision was made; corrections were requested.
Decision Sent / Completed Decision delivered Check your email — the result has been sent.

Two confusing points

1. "Under Review" appearing right after submission does not mean peer review has started. If the status became "Under Review" within a day or two, the paper is most likely still in the editor/office desk check: a technical format, scope and plagiarism check. From there it either moves to reviewer assignment or is desk-rejected.

2. The status going from "Under Review" back to "With Editor" is normal. Once reviewer reports are in, the paper returns to the editor for a decision; the system shows this as "With Editor" or "Decision in Process". So the process has moved forward to the decision stage, not backward — which is usually a good sign.

To see how all these stops connect and what the editor and reviewers look at each step, read how peer review works — the status codes are the visible face of that process.

When should you email the editor?

If the status hasn't changed for a while, don't panic; first check the journal's stated typical decision time. Writing frequently before that time is up won't speed things along. But if that time has clearly been exceeded (for example months at "Awaiting Reviewer Scores"), a polite, short status inquiry from the corresponding author is entirely appropriate.

Making the wait easier

Refreshing the status line won't speed up the process — but submitting a complete paper to the right journal both lowers desk-reject risk and shortens this uncertain wait. Peerfect's free journal recommendation engine puts journals matching your paper's scope in front of you; together with the pre-submission checklist, it lets you focus on the part you can actually control — submission quality.

In short: status codes carry different names but always describe the same journey. Don't celebrate "Under Review" too early or read the return to "With Editor" as bad news; trust the journal's typical times and ask politely only when there's a genuine delay.


Sources: Tracking the Progress of Your Manuscript — Enago Academy, Understanding Manuscript Status Terminologies — CW Authors, Why does the status switch to "with editor" — Editage Insights. Status names vary from journal to journal; the exact definition lives in each journal's own submission system.

Frequently Asked Questions

It says 'Under Review' right after submission — are reviewers reading it?

Not necessarily. If the status became 'Under Review' a day or two after submission, the paper is usually still in the editor/office desk check — a technical and scope check — after which it's either assigned to reviewers or desk-rejected. A stronger sign that peer review has truly started is reaching 'Under Review' after passing through 'Editor Assigned' or 'With Editor'.

The status went from 'Under Review' back to 'With Editor' — is that bad?

No, that's normal and usually a good sign. Once reviewer reports are in, the paper returns to the editor for a decision; the system shows this as 'With Editor' or 'Decision in Process'. So the process has moved forward to the decision stage, not backward. The type of decision (accept/revise/reject) can't be read from this status.

What does 'Awaiting Reviewer Scores' mean?

The editor has assigned and invited reviewers, and the system is waiting for them to submit their reports. Depending on reviewer availability, this is one of the longest stages. Moving to 'Required Reviews Completed' means enough reports have arrived and the editor is nearing a decision.

The status hasn't changed in a long time — should I email the editor?

First check the journal's stated typical decision time. If that time has clearly been exceeded (e.g. months at 'Awaiting Reviewer Scores'), a polite, short status inquiry from the corresponding author is entirely appropriate. Writing frequently before the time is up won't speed things along; trust the journal's average times to manage expectations.

Related articles

Peer Review

How does peer review work?

Peer review step by step: from submission to decision, from desk check to reviewer rounds. Single vs double-blind, typical timelines, and what editors and reviewers look for.

Journal Selection

My paper was rejected (desk reject): next steps

The difference between a desk reject and a peer-review rejection, how to read the rejection letter, reposition your paper and make a strong submission to the next journal.

Revision & Response

What is a minor revision and how to handle it (for beginners)

I got a minor revision, what now? What a minor revision means, is it good or bad, how to do it, what to watch for, and can it still be rejected? A guide for new authors.