You have submitted your research paper to a SCOPUS or UGC CARE journal. Now you wait. For most PhD scholars — particularly those doing a part-time PhD alongside full-time employment — this waiting period is one of the most anxiety-inducing parts of the entire research journey. You do not know what is happening, whether the paper will be accepted, or how long it will take. Your thesis submission deadline is somewhere in the background, slowly getting closer.
This article explains exactly what happens after you submit, what each stage means, what the realistic timelines are, and what to do when you get a response.
Stage 1 — Editorial Assessment (Days 1–14)
When your manuscript lands at a journal, it goes first to the editor — not to reviewers. The editor’s first task is to assess whether the paper is suitable for the journal at all. This is the desk review, and it is where the majority of papers are rejected.
The editor checks:
- Is the paper within the journal’s scope?
- Does the abstract suggest an original contribution?
- Is the paper formatted according to the author guidelines?
- Is the English of sufficient standard for peer review?
- Is there evidence of a clear methodology and argument?
If the answer to any of these is clearly no, the editor rejects the paper immediately. This is a desk rejection — and it typically arrives within 1–14 days of submission.
A desk rejection is not a judgment on your research. It is most often a judgment on the fit between your paper and this journal, or on the preparation of the manuscript. The appropriate response is to revise and resubmit to a different journal promptly.
If the paper passes the editorial assessment, it is sent to peer reviewers.
Stage 2 — Finding Reviewers (Days 14–30)
Finding peer reviewers is slower than most scholars expect. Editors typically invite 2–3 reviewers per paper, and reviewers frequently decline. An editor may need to invite 5–6 people before 2 agree to review. This process alone can take 2–4 weeks.
During this stage, the journal’s submission system will typically show a status like “Under Review” or “Reviewers Invited.” If the status remains “With Editor” for more than three weeks, it usually means the paper is still in the editorial assessment stage or reviewers are still being found.
Stage 3 — Peer Review (4–16 Weeks)
Once reviewers have agreed and received the manuscript, the review process begins. Reviewers are typically given 4–8 weeks to submit their comments. Some take longer, some submit early.
Peer review in humanities is different from STEM in one important respect: it is more interpretive and argumentative. Reviewers are not just checking methodology for technical errors — they are evaluating whether the argument is original, whether it engages adequately with relevant scholarship, and whether the theoretical framework is applied rigorously. Their comments can be detailed and substantive.
What reviewers assess:
- Originality — does the paper add something genuinely new?
- Theoretical grounding — is the framework appropriate and applied consistently?
- Engagement with existing scholarship — are the most relevant sources cited and engaged with?
- Argument quality — is the claim clearly stated and convincingly defended?
- Evidence — are arguments supported by specific textual evidence or data?
- Presentation — is the English clear and academic?
Stage 4 — The Editorial Decision
After receiving reviewer reports, the editor makes one of four decisions.
Accept as is. Extremely rare for a first submission to any serious journal. If this happens, it means your paper was exceptionally well-prepared and the reviewers had no substantive concerns.
Minor revisions. The paper is accepted in principle and needs small corrections — clarification of a point, additional references, formatting fixes. The revision period is usually 4–8 weeks. Follow the editor’s instructions exactly and return promptly.
Major revisions (Revise and Resubmit). The paper has genuine merit but needs substantial work — possibly a restructured argument, significant additions to the literature review, more developed analysis, or revision of the theoretical framework. This is not a rejection. It is an invitation to submit a better version. Most published papers go through at least one round of major revision.
Reject. The paper is rejected. This may come with or without reviewer feedback.
| Decision | What it means | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Accept as is | Paper is publication-ready | Complete final formalities |
| Minor revisions | Accepted in principle | Revise and return within the deadline |
| Major revisions (R&R) | Merit recognised; substantial work needed | Revise carefully; write a response letter |
| Reject | This journal will not publish this paper | Revise and submit to the next journal on your shortlist |
What to Do With a Revise and Resubmit
A Revise and Resubmit (R&R) decision is a positive outcome. The editor and reviewers believe the paper has enough merit to warrant further consideration. How you respond to reviewer comments largely determines whether the revised paper is accepted.
Write a response letter. Address every reviewer comment, one by one. For each comment, either explain how you have revised the paper in response, or — if you disagree — explain your reasoning clearly and respectfully. Reviewers respect authors who engage thoughtfully with their feedback, including when they push back.
Do not ignore comments. Even if you disagree with a comment, acknowledge it. Ignoring reviewer feedback is the fastest way to get a second rejection.
Be specific about what you changed. In your response letter, cite the page number and paragraph where you made each change. This makes the editor’s job easier and signals professionalism.
Return within the deadline. If the editor gives you eight weeks, use them well — but return the revision on time. Late revisions create administrative complications and slow the process further.
Realistic Timelines for Indian Humanities Journals
| Stage | Realistic timeline |
|---|---|
| Desk review | 1–14 days |
| Finding reviewers | 2–4 weeks |
| Peer review | 6–16 weeks |
| Editorial decision | 1–2 weeks after reviews received |
| Revision period (if R&R) | 4–8 weeks |
| Second review (if required) | 4–8 weeks |
| Final acceptance to publication | 4–12 weeks |
| Total (best case) | 4–6 months |
| Total (typical) | 6–12 months |
This is why the Thesis Guide consistently advises scholars to begin working on their first research paper no later than Year 2 of a four-year PhD. Waiting until Year 3 or Year 4 creates a real risk of missing your thesis submission window.
What If the Journal Goes Silent?
Some journals — particularly smaller UGC CARE Group I journals — have inconsistent communication. If your paper has been under review for more than 12 weeks without any update, it is appropriate to send a polite status enquiry to the editor. Most journal submission systems allow you to check status online; use that first before emailing.
If a journal has not responded after six months and is not responding to enquiries, it is reasonable to withdraw the paper and submit elsewhere. Send a formal withdrawal letter before submitting to a different journal — submitting to two journals simultaneously is considered academic misconduct.
Need Help With Peer Review Responses?
Responding to reviewer comments is a skill that most scholars develop through experience. The Thesis Guide assists scholars with revision and peer review response at every stage — whether you have received a major R&R, a borderline rejection with feedback, or a straight rejection that needs a new angle before resubmission.
A free consultation will tell you what is salvageable, what needs revision, and what the realistic path to publication looks like from where you are.
Request Your Free Consultation →
Explore more resources for PhD scholars on our blog.
My Research Paper Was Rejected. What Do I Do Next? →