On being an editor
What actually happens when you submit a manuscript
When you submit a manuscript, you’re hoping for a quick, clear decision. You’ve put many months—maybe years—into the work, and waiting is hard. Now that I’ve been on the other side of the process for about a year, I wanted to offer a look at how things work behind the scenes. This post walks through how I handle manuscripts at the journal I edit and how I try to balance the many moving parts of being an editor.
Just to be clear: this reflects my personal workflow and experience as an editor. It’s not official journal or publisher policy, and other editors (even at the same journal) may approach things differently.For the past year, I’ve been a co–Editor-in-Chief at Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL), a journal for short-format1, high-impact studies across the Earth and planetary sciences. With about a dozen editors, I mainly handle submissions in low-temperature geochemistry, surface processes, and Earth history. Others cover areas like geophysics or planetary interiors, with some overlap to avoid conflicts and ensure relevant expertise.
So, without further ado, here’s what happens when you submit a manuscript to EPSL.
My editorial workflow
Initial decisions
When you submit to Earth and Planetary Science Letters, your manuscript first passes through Editorial Manager for technical checks—length, references, formatting—which usually takes a day or two. Then the managing editor reviews it for scope and fit. Clearly unsuitable papers might be desk rejected here. Otherwise, the manuscript is assigned to a co–Editor-in-Chief based on topic, workload, and conflicts of interest. That part takes another couple of days.
Then it lands on my desk. I read the cover letter, abstract, intro, and often skip to the discussion and conclusions. I’ll check methods or results if something’s unclear. If it looks promising, I start thinking about reviewers. I aim to make an initial decision—whether to send it out for review—within about a week of initial submission, though that depends on volume. I receive about 2–3 new assignments a week, though they come in waves. Over a year, that adds up to as many as 150 new submissions. And since EPSL doesn’t use associate editors, each manuscript I handle stays with me from start to finish.
I’m fairly strict at the desk stage. Every editor has their own style, but after handling 100+ manuscripts, I’ve developed a reasonable sense of what’s likely to make it through review and into print. I use a loose internal rubric2 to decide what goes out. I’m not trying to pre-filter for perfection—some manuscripts I send out come back with both reviewers recommending rejection, and that’s fine; if everything came back with minor revisions, I’d know I was being too strict.
Mid-stage reviews
When I send a manuscript out for review, the Editorial Manager system asks reviewers to submit comments within 21 days. However, I’m flexible; a late review is always better than none at all. As such, the process often takes longer—sometimes much longer. Reviewers have up to a week to accept their invitation, and their 21-day clock doesn’t start until they do. Many (myself included!) use that buffer to buy more time. While I get it, I’d prefer a quick email requesting an extension over silent stalling. At EPSL, we usually aim for two reviews, though I’ll bring in a third to tiebreak or if one review is poor—sometimes adding weeks. Reviewer timing is largely out of my hands, but if someone’s approaching 40 days, I start nudging. Once reviews are in, I aim to make a decision within a week. I revisit my notes, weigh the reviewer feedback, and write a decision that highlights the key points and outlines the next steps—whether that’s a revision, a reject with the option to resubmit, or a recommendation to transfer elsewhere.
Final decisions
The last decision stage is by far the most time-consuming. By now, authors have revised their manuscript and submitted a hefty PDF—often 100+ pages once responses, tracked changes, and supplementary material are included. Making a call—typically ‘accept,’ ‘revise and accept,’ or ‘more review’—requires a deep dive into everything: my original notes, reviewer comments, author responses, and the revised manuscript itself.
Before I even see the manuscript, it goes through another round of technical checks (length, references, required files). These checks can take a week or more, but once the manuscript reaches my desk, my target is a two-week turnaround. I usually let a couple of final decisions accumulate, then block out a weekend afternoon to work through them. It’s the only time I can give the task the uninterrupted focus it needs—weekdays are just too fragmented. That may add time, but I take these decisions seriously—for the sake of the authors, reviewers, and broader community. I try to avoid sending revisions back out unless major issues remain. If reviewers just reply with ‘accept as is,’ we’ve all wasted time. Editorial judgment exists so we don’t have to outsource every decision.
While we’re here
A few other things come up often, and I wasn’t quite sure where to slot them in—so here they are:
Reviewers who ghost. If you’re not going to do the review, just say no. I know you're busy—we all are—but silence slows everything down. I try not to send five invites just to land two yeses, but when people don’t reply, I have to cast a wider net. And sometimes, everyone says yes, which isn’t ideal either.
Yes, editors take time off. Conferences, fieldwork, family trips—it happens. I try to schedule reviews and revisions to come in for when I know I’ll have time for them, but life doesn’t always cooperate. If your manuscript sits for a week or two, that’s probably what’s going on.
This isn’t my only job. I’m a full-time research scientist, and between mentoring, grants, meetings, and family, the days fill up fast. And if it's 7:30 p.m. and the choice is reviewing your response to reviews or hearing Elephant and Piggie (again)… well, you know who wins.
Authors checking in too soon. I love the energy! But most journals (EPSL included) publish timeliness stats, sometimes right on the homepage. If your manuscript is still within that window, it's not late. And yes, every email asking for an update takes time—which slows things down. Part of why I wrote this post: if you're within the stats, sit tight.
In sum
This post is meant to pull back the curtain on how editorial decisions actually get made—at least in my corner of the world. Every manuscript involves real time, thought, and (multiple) people doing their best with limited hours and lots of moving parts. Some of this is specific to EPSL, but much of it likely applies to other journals. But behind every decision is a person trying to get it right.
If you found this article interesting or know someone who might, consider subscribing or sharing it, using the links below.
Karl Turekian, a former editor, wrote that a letter shouldn’t be longer than St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. (About 7,100 words.)
Likely a future post—I have a surprising amount to say about this!