The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Referees: how do you think about journal review deadlines?

In our newest “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

I am curious about people’s thoughts on the deadlines for reviewing papers. I know that journals always need referees, and agreeing to review a draft is usually a big help. Meanwhile, as an author, I always appreciate timely reports from journals, no matter what the verdict is.

Interestingly, the last few times when I declined a request for reviewing a draft, the common reason was that the deadlines did not fit my schedule. For example, I declined a request yesterday because the journal wanted the report in 1.5 months, which was basically between now and the busiest time of the semester. If, for example, they have set the deadline in early-mid January, I would have been happy to review it, but that would mean that the reviewing takes 2.5 months that is significantly longer than their original expectation. I felt asking for a month extension was too much and not quite polite.
Is this reasonable? Or did I treat the deadline for reviewing papers too seriously?

I’ve noticed that journals seem to be requesting relatively short deadlines recently, and in cases where I’d be willing to review the paper but not meet the deadline, I’ve simply let the editor know this. As far as I can remember, they’ve always been fine with it–and indeed, I suspect journals are so in need of referees these days that they’ll generally accommodate reasonable requests for a longer deadline.

What do other reviewers think/do?

Posted in

17 responses to “Referees: how do you think about journal review deadlines?”

  1. Altos

    It is absolutely not impolite to ask for a later deadline. This happens all the time. If it’s too late for the editor, they will let you know and ask someone else. Sometimes it is more important for them to just secure a referee than to make sure that the referee will complete the report within their ideal time frame.

    Reply
  2. one referee

    When I receive an invitation to referee, if I have not refereed it within a week, then I decline the invitation. If (and when) I agree to referee it, I do it within 3 days.
    I have now refereed over 200 papers, and I am often asked because I am fast and efficient.
    I mostly referee for leading journals in the philosophy of science, but I also referee for another field outside of philosophy, a field in which I have published numerous papers in a highly respected journal. I generally do not referee for journals that I do not send my own papers to.
    In addition, I review book manuscripts and grant applications for funding agencies.
    I am inclined to think that if you cannot referee something NOW, the you should just pass on it.

    Reply
    1. seconded

      I think this is completely the right approach, and also fundamentally how I referee. Reviewing a manuscript does not take less time because you sit on it for a few weeks, and if you can’t do it within a quick turnaround at present, you should pass on it. The time spent in limbo has meaningfully detrimental effects on people’s careers, and can be minimized with some conscientiousness. Thanks for your service to the profession, I hope we can further shift norms this direction as awareness of peer review problems grows.

      Reply
      1. Bart

        thanks to both of you for making the reviewing process more manageable for all sides

      2. Daniel

        Like you and the other person, I typically referee a paper within a couple days of receiving the request. I think the longest I’ve ever gone is a week, and that is very atypical. Given what I’ve heard about how hard it is to find referees, probably it is better to do it and take a while than to not do it. But I also do not see the point in taking a while to do it. Usually you can squeeze it in in front of something else.

  3. Early career

    I think it’s perfectly fine to ask for an extension.

    However, I do have a preference for quick review times. I think four weeks are reasonable. I do my reviews generally in less than two.

    I think reviewing is not that much work and it should warrant some priority in one’s calendar as a service to the person waiting for the review. If it’s a busy time, it’s fine to decline the invitation to review. But we should also give it the priority it is due in our calendars. I suspect that some portion of the people who take 4+ weeks to review simply doesn’t do that and then crams in reviewing just before the deadline. The detrimental consequences of that could be reduced with shorter deadlines.

    Reply
  4. Michel

    Like many of the others here, I tend to complete reports within a couple of weeks, although I’ve been slowed recently by the birth of Child 2 (in fact, I accidentally went two days over a relatively short deadline recently. Ugh.). Psychologically, I appreciate having a month or two, but I prefer to clear it from my plate quickly. Besides which, it’s fun to read new material!

    Reply
  5. rabbit

    I’m sympathetic to the view that if you genuinely cannot complete a review within a couple weeks (let alone six), you should probably just quickly decline it. This is partly to hopefully expedite the reviewing process for the author. However, it’s also because anyone who does not have time to complete a single review in over a month is utterly overwhelmed with work and should likely decline extra service tasks for their own wellbeing. I don’t want to go off on a tangent but this question is a symptom of the unreasonable working hours within academia.

    That said, I have asked for review extensions before when a paper is of high interest to me and editors don’t seem to mind.

    Reply
  6. Altos

    I strongly disagree with those above who are saying that you should just reject a referee invitation if you can’t do it NOW, or within a week, or whatever. As an editor, I would much rather have my preferred referees accept the invitation than decline because they think that whoever does it even sooner than I requested. My next-preferred referee may not feel the same way, and you may therefore inadvertently lengthen the review process more than you would have if you had just accepted the invitation (even setting aside the time it takes to secure referees). If you can do it within the requested time frame, and you want to do it, then accept; if you can’t do it within that time frame, but could within some longer time frame, then just ask the editor.

    I applaud those who referee papers within a few days or a week of being invited. That is very generous and helpful to editors and authors. But many of us have responsibilities that make this an unreasonable expectation. Not knowing in advance what verdict I’ll give, how close of a call it will be, how much I’ll have and want to say to the author, and so on, I don’t know whether a referee task will take me two hours or ten. I might read the paper, sleep on it, read around the literature, go back to the paper, write a report, sleep on it, and then submit. Looking ahead on my calendar, it’s pretty rare that I can promise enough time to review someone else’s work within the next week or even three. In addition to time, it can take up a lot of brain space just thinking about the paper.

    Daniel says, “Usually you can squeeze it in in front of something else.” Sometimes you can, and it would be very nice of you to do so. But sometimes you shouldn’t, or at least are not obligated to do so. Nor do you have to add the task to your plate, at the expense of other things you care about, such as spending time with family or friends. If the soonest you can guarantee a report without displacing something else you value is on X date, then accept the invitation if X falls before the requested deadline, and ask the editor if not. Of course, if you end up doing it sooner, that’s great.

    Reply
    1. ribbit

      Wait, ten hours? Why would a referee report take that long? If you need to spend many hours doing lit review in order to assess the paper, then shouldn’t you decline it on grounds of lacking expertise in the subject area? I’m now wondering if this is common – I too would put off reviewing for months if I thought it would take upwards of an entire working day.

      Reply
      1. Altos

        It’s rare, but if I end up recommending R&R for a particularly rich and difficult paper, it can take me a pretty long time to write the report, even after having taken the time to read and think about the paper. A report recommending R&R needs to convey and justify proper enthusiasm about the paper to the editor and explain any major concerns that must be addressed in a revision. If I like the paper enough to recommend R&R, I often also have other questions or suggestions I want to raise to the author. I don’t know about others, but that can take me a long time to do well.

        I almost never write my reports the same day as reading the paper. Even when I have formed a snap judgment while or shortly after reading the paper, I need to take the time to reflect and sit with it in order to feel confident in my recommendation.

        On average I referee something like 18 papers per year. If I have more than two on my plate within any given month, I either decline or ask for an extended deadline (of up to one month).

  7. Humanati

    Associate Editor here. It’s not uncommon to get multiple rejections from people before finding someone who agrees to referee. And it’s sadly not that uncommon for this process of finding a referee to take 2-4 weeks. (Consider: 7 people who each take a few days to reject your request. Or: you ask 5 people but one of them leaves you hanging for over a week and you just have to give up and move onto the next person after having wasted unnecessary time on the ghoster.*) So, agreeing to referee on the condition that you secure (e.g.) a 2 week extension isn’t necessarily disadvantaging the author, or making the total review time longer. There will be a fair amount of cases where doings this means things end up the same (or better) than they would have if you’d let the AE continue with their search.

    * Obviously everyone is entitled to say no; but an under-appreciated point is that it helps everyone out if you can say no *quickly*–better still if you can recommend alternatives when you do so.

    Reply
    1. ten months and nada

      Two to four weeks isn’t bad! I recently had to reach out to a respected journal after ten months of silence. They were apologetic but still hadn’t managed to find reviewers. Shockingly, they had gone through only eight (yes, eight!) potential referees during that entire time. I think they were so embarrassed that one of their associate editors stepped in as a referee—and the paper was accepted within a month of my follow-up.

      Reply
      1. Humanati

        That’s shocking! Trying just 8 referees in 10 months? Sorry you had to grow through this but glad to hear there was a happy ending. I’ve had it take 3 months to find a referee before, but by that stage I’ve gone through more than 8! In any case, you’re right that taking months to find a referee happens (though I think and hope this is a good deal rarer than it taking 1 month or less). I was just trying to get across that in my experience, it’s not uncommon for it to take a month, so referees shouldn’t necessarily think that asking for a month’s extension will necessarily make things worse.

  8. a seperate point

    It would be great if there were some transparency about how many reviewers were invited, whether they said yes or no, and the like. Ergo does this, I think. (If the system could display whether reviewers asked for extension, even better.) This really helps to show that editors care about the paper. I know many editors care a lot, and communicating this with authors would allow the editors to take credit for their hard work.

    Not naming, but once I encountered a journal that took over a month for editors to invite reviewers for a minor revision, which didn’t really feel good.

    Reply
  9. ten months and nada

    I almost never stop to consider what other commitments might conflict with a review deadline. I tend to accept almost immediately, as long as I’m confident the paper is close enough to my research area for me to provide a quality review in one sitting. As for timing, I almost always complete the review the week—or even the day—it’s due. Some journals send automated reminders, which I appreciate; they signal that the journal cares about keeping the process efficient and on track. For me, giving two months to review doesn’t make much sense, since I’ll do virtually nothing during the first seven weeks. A one-month deadline feels ideal—it’s like assigning the work to a future version of myself. Anything shorter, though, makes it feel like the current me is taking on the load.

    Reply
  10. Mike Titelbaum

    On behalf of editors, first off my thanks to all of you who referee so quickly. Second, we’d much prefer you just tell us your situation and leave it to our discretion whether to extend your time or not. I’m currently on invitation number 12 for a particular submission, and would be happy to give extra time to anyone qualified who’d take it up!

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Mike TitelbaumCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading