Peer review deadlines can sometimes be shorter than the time needed to evaluate a manuscript thoroughly. An invitation may allow just five to ten days, leaving reviewers to balance the expected turnaround time with their existing research and professional commitments.
For newer reviewers, declining an invitation or requesting additional time can feel uncomfortable, particularly when they are eager to gain experience. However, accepting a deadline that is difficult to meet can lead to rushed assessments or delays that affect the editorial process.
A more practical approach is to assess your availability before accepting, discuss a realistic timeline with the editor, and request a peer review extension when necessary.
Why do journals set tight peer review deadlines?
Journals set peer review deadlines to keep editorial decisions moving and avoid unnecessary delays in manuscript processing. However, finding qualified reviewers who are available within the requested timeframe can be challenging, particularly when researchers are balancing multiple professional responsibilities.
The 2018 Global State of Peer Review report by Publons estimated that researchers collectively spent 260 million researcher-days waiting for reviews to be returned to journals in 2016. The report also found that editors were sending more review invitations to secure completed reviews, reflecting the growing difficulty of finding available reviewers.
These delays have consequences for authors, particularly early-career researchers whose publication timelines may influence their research plans and professional development. Although journals need timely reviews, the initial deadline in a review invitation may sometimes be negotiable. An editor may prefer to accommodate a qualified reviewer who needs additional time rather than restart the search for someone with suitable expertise.
If a journal requests a review within seven days but you need three weeks, it can be worth discussing that timeline before declining. Whether an extension is possible depends on the journal’s editorial requirements and the manuscript’s circumstances.
How can you request a peer review extension?
You can request a peer review extension by contacting the editor, explaining when you can realistically complete the review, and asking whether the proposed date is acceptable. The request does not need to be elaborate. Editors primarily need to know whether your proposed timeline can fit within the journal’s editorial schedule. A simple message could be:
‘I would be glad to review this manuscript and can provide a thorough assessment by [date]. Please let me know if that timeline works for you.’
This communicates your willingness to review while giving the editor a specific date to consider. There is usually no need to explain your workload or personal commitments in detail.
Some manuscript submission systems allow reviewers to request additional time directly. If that option is unavailable, a short email to the editorial office is generally sufficient. The amount of additional time you request should also be realistic. An extension of one or two weeks may be manageable for some journals, while requesting another two months could make the assignment impractical for the editor.
If your availability is significantly beyond the requested deadline, it may be better to decline the review invitation and consider another opportunity when your schedule allows.
What should you do if you accept a review but cannot meet the deadline?
If you have accepted a manuscript review and realize you cannot meet the agreed deadline, contact the editor as soon as possible. Even experienced reviewers encounter unexpected research commitments, additional responsibilities, or personal circumstances that affect their schedules. What matters is how quickly you communicate the change.
Waiting until the peer review deadline has passed leaves the editor uncertain about whether your report will arrive. Earlier communication allows them to decide whether to grant an extension or approach another reviewer. For example, you could write:
‘I’m sorry, but an unexpected commitment has affected my review schedule. Would it be possible to extend the deadline to [date]? If this would delay the editorial process, I understand if you need to reassign the review.’
This acknowledges the delay while offering a practical way forward. It also gives the editor enough information to make a decision without requiring a lengthy explanation. If you cannot complete the manuscript review within a reasonable additional period, withdrawing promptly may be more helpful than repeatedly requesting extensions.
The Committee on Publication Ethics’ ethical guidelines for peer reviewers recommend agreeing to review only when you can reasonably meet the proposed or mutually agreed timeline and notifying the journal promptly when an extension becomes necessary. Clear communication helps editors manage their workflow and maintains trust in the reviewing process.
How can you manage your reviewer workload more effectively?
Managing reviewer workload begins when you receive an invitation, rather than when the submission deadline approaches. A three-week review window may initially seem manageable. However, if research commitments and other responsibilities occupy the first two weeks, you have effectively left yourself only one week to complete the assessment.
Before accepting a review invitation, consider how much time the manuscript is likely to require and where that time will fit into your existing schedule. It can help to reserve separate periods for reading the manuscript, evaluating the methods and findings, preparing your comments, and reviewing the final report before submission.
Some researchers set aside a regular weekly block for peer review. Treating reviewing as a planned professional commitment makes it easier to assess whether a new assignment is manageable without disrupting other responsibilities. It is also worth considering how many reviews you are already handling. Our article on how many peer reviews you should do per year offers a practical framework for balancing reviewing commitments with research and other professional responsibilities.
An important part of managing reviewer workload is recognizing when another assignment would stretch your capacity too far. If you cannot give the manuscript the attention it requires, declining early allows the editor to approach someone else.
What do short peer review deadlines reveal about the publishing process?
Very short peer review deadlines can reflect wider pressures within scholarly publishing, particularly the difficulty of finding qualified reviewers who have sufficient time to accept new assignments. When editors need to approach several researchers before securing a reviewer, the time spent sending invitations and waiting for responses can affect the overall editorial timeline. Short initial deadlines may be one way of trying to manage these delays, although practices vary between journals.
Reviewers experience the other side of this pressure. They are expected to provide careful, constructive assessments while balancing reviewing with research, teaching, and other professional commitments. Individual reviewers cannot resolve these broader challenges simply by accepting more assignments. However, they can help make the process more predictable by communicating their availability honestly and responding promptly to invitations.
If you are uncertain whether you should accept another assignment, our guide on how to decline a peer review request explains when declining is appropriate and how to communicate your decision professionally. Realistic peer review deadlines, clear communication, and thoughtful decisions about reviewing capacity all contribute to a more reliable editorial process.
Key takeaways
Tight peer review deadlines can be challenging, but they do not always mean you need to decline an invitation. If the manuscript is within your expertise and you have the capacity to review it, requesting a realistic extension may be a reasonable option.
Before accepting, assess your reviewer workload and make sure you can give the manuscript sufficient attention. If your circumstances change after accepting, communicate with the editor early rather than allowing the deadline to pass without an update.
A sustainable reviewing practice depends on making realistic commitments and delivering thoughtful assessments within agreed timelines.
Try it live
ReviewerOne’s AI-assisted peer review platform supports reviewers with tools that help identify potential reference issues and reduce time spent on repetitive checks, while keeping expert judgment central to the review process.
Sign up for ReviewerOne to explore practical tools and resources designed to support a more manageable and confident reviewing experience.
