Peer review remains the cornerstone of scholarly publishing in engineering, ensuring that research is rigorously vetted before dissemination. Yet the process frequently suffers from prolonged turnaround times that frustrate authors, delay the flow of new knowledge, and strain the capacity of editorial teams. For engineering manuscripts, where experimental data, simulations, and applied methodologies require specialized expertise, delays can be particularly acute. Shortening review cycles without sacrificing quality is a shared goal for the entire publishing ecosystem. By implementing targeted strategies—from technological tools to policy changes—journals can accelerate reviews while maintaining the integrity of the evaluation. This article outlines actionable approaches to reduce turnaround times, drawing on best practices and proven methods in engineering and related fields.

Understanding the Current Landscape of Peer Review in Engineering

Engineering manuscripts often involve complex methodologies, quantitative analyses, and domain-specific knowledge that limit the pool of qualified reviewers. A typical review cycle can stretch from three to six months—or longer—with significant variation across subdisciplines. According to a 2021 study in Scientometrics, the average time from submission to first decision for engineering journals is about 90–120 days, with many articles experiencing multiple rounds of revision. Common pain points include the initial editorial assessment, reviewer recruitment, and follow-up communication. Recognizing these bottlenecks is the first step toward meaningful improvement.

Key challenges include reviewer fatigue, increasing submission volumes, and the difficulty of matching manuscripts with appropriate referees. Many editors rely on personal networks, which limits diversity and can introduce bias. Additionally, engineering research often includes supplemental materials—datasets, code, large figures—that require additional time to evaluate. Without systematic interventions, these obstacles can perpetuate long review cycles, harming authors and the broader scientific community.

Core Strategies for Reducing Turnaround Time

Streamlining the Initial Editorial Assessment

The fastest way to reduce turnaround time is to eliminate unnecessary reviews early. A thorough prescreening by the editorial team can quickly identify manuscripts that do not meet journal scope, quality standards, or ethical requirements. Desk rejects should be issued within the first week of submission, sparing reviewers from evaluating work that has little chance of acceptance. This initial triage also allows editors to give authors prompt feedback, enabling them to resubmit elsewhere without delay.

Developing clear, objective screening criteria for scope, technical soundness, and completeness is essential. For instance, a checklist for required components (e.g., methods section, data availability statement) can expedite the process. Some journals use an associate editor to perform a rapid technical check before assigning reviewers. This step typically takes two to three days and can cut overall review time by 10–15 percent when done systematically.

Expanding and Diversifying the Reviewer Pool

A limited reviewer database is a primary driver of extended turnaround times. Journals should proactively build and maintain a diverse, large pool of potential referees. Strategies include mining reference lists, leveraging professional society networks, and inviting early-career researchers (including postdocs and senior PhD students). Many experienced reviewers are overburdened; engaging newer researchers can distribute the workload and bring fresh perspectives.

Creating an inclusive reviewer database also addresses representation gaps. Platforms like Publons (now part of Web of Science) and ORCID allow editors to identify reviewers by expertise, publication record, and review history. Institutional partnerships and researcher profiles on LinkedIn or ResearchGate can further expand the pool. A rule of thumb: aim for at least 10–15 qualified reviewers per manuscript to avoid relying on the same small subset.

Leveraging Technology and Automation

Modern manuscript management systems (e.g., ScholarOne, Editorial Manager, Open Journal Systems) offer features that can significantly accelerate the review process. Automated reminders, scheduling of deadline warnings, and integration with reviewer databases reduce administrative overhead. For example, systems can send a series of reminders: an initial invitation, a follow-up after one week, and a final notice 48 hours before the deadline. Automating these communications frees editorial staff to focus on higher-level tasks.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly used for reviewer matching, scope verification, and even initial quality checks. Tools like the AJ’s Reviewer Matching platform or the Semantic Scholar API can suggest reviewers based on publication history and citation networks. While AI cannot replace human judgment, it can propose candidates with high precision, cutting reviewer selection time by 30–50 percent.

Additionally, structured review forms with guided questions, rating scales, and compulsory fields streamline reviewer input, making it easier to compile decisions. Some journals allow reviewers to provide inline comments on PDFs, which can be faster than writing separate summaries.

Optimizing Reviewer Engagement and Communication

Clear, concise expectations improve reviewer performance. Journals should provide explicit guidelines on review scope, criteria, and expected turnaround times. A well-crafted invitation that includes the abstract, a brief statement of the manuscript’s importance, and a realistic deadline can increase acceptance rates. Offering a range of deadlines (e.g., two to four weeks) allows reviewers to choose a timeline that fits their schedule, reducing the likelihood of no-shows.

Incentives can also motivate timely reviews. Many journals now acknowledge reviewers in annual lists, offer discounts on publication fees, or provide free access to journal content. Some publishers, like Springer Nature and Wiley, have reward programs that give reviewers credits or discounts. While financial incentives are rare, recognition and non-monetary benefits are effective. Institutions and professional societies can also incentivize review work by including it in performance evaluations or continuing education credits.

Personalized communication matters. A follow-up email from an editor—rather than an automated reminder—can prompt a reviewer who is on the fence. If a reviewer declines, asking for alternative suggestions can speed up the recruitment process.

Managing the Review Workflow

Editorial teams must actively monitor review progress and intervene when delays occur. Setting firm deadlines (e.g., 21–30 days) and enforcing them with grace periods is essential. When a reviewer is late, a polite email query should be sent after the deadline passes. If no response within a few days, it is better to withdraw the invitation and seek an alternative than to wait indefinitely. Many journals adopt a policy of switching to a new reviewer after two reminders without a response.

A contingency plan is vital. Editors should always have backup reviewers identified at the invitation stage. Some systems allow for simultaneous invitations to multiple reviewers, but this can lead to too many acceptances. A safer approach is sequential invitations, with a target of three active reviewers at any time. Editors can also keep a “rapid response” list of reviewers who have previously delivered quick, high-quality reviews.

Regular reporting on turnaround metrics—average days to first decision, number of overdue reviews, reviewer response rates—helps identify bottlenecks and track improvement. Sharing these metrics with the editorial board fosters accountability.

Prioritization and Triage

Not all manuscripts need the same depth of review. Journals can implement a tiered review system where high-impact or time-sensitive articles (e.g., those with clinical implications or significant theoretical advances) receive expedited handling. For example, an editor may assign a high-priority manuscript to the fastest available reviewers and set a shorter deadline. Less urgent submissions can follow the normal track.

Transparent prioritization criteria—based on novelty, potential citation impact, or urgency—should be communicated to authors to manage expectations. Some journals use an express review option for a fee, but this approach is controversial and not universally adopted. Independent of financial incentives, editorial discretion can be exercised fairly to balance speed and thoroughness.

Best Practices for Editorial Teams

Setting Expectations with Authors

Authors should know the review timeline at submission. Displaying estimated turnaround times on the journal website and within the submission system sets clear expectations. If the process takes longer than anticipated, proactive communication—e.g., a status update email after 30 days—can reduce author anxiety. Some journals provide a dashboard showing the current stage of review (e.g., "with editor," "under review," "decision pending").

When reviewers are difficult to recruit, editors can explain the situation and offer authors the option to suggest qualified reviewers themselves. This collaborative approach can accelerate the search and build goodwill.

Proactive Communication with Reviewers

Reviewers appreciate being kept informed of the manuscript’s status, especially if they have invested time. Sending a reminder one week before the deadline, acknowledging receipt of the review, and thanking them afterward all contribute to a positive experience. Some journals send a final decision email to reviewers, which helps them see the outcome of their work and reinforces the value of their contribution.

Acknowledgment programs, such as public lists of reviewers in annual issues or on the journal website, encourage future participation. A personal thank-you note from the editor-in-chief can be particularly meaningful.

Implementation of Structured Review Forms

Standardized review forms reduce variation in feedback and make it easier for reviewers to provide comprehensive assessments. For engineering manuscripts, a structured form might include sections on technical soundness, methodological rigor, data completeness, clarity, and novelty. Using drop-down menus for overall recommendation (e.g., accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) and compulsory fields for the most important criteria ensures that critical feedback is not missed.

Some journals also use a checklist for ethical compliance, data sharing, and conflict of interest. These forms can be integrated into the manuscript management system, with automatic prompts for missing information. The form should be designed to be completed in 15–30 minutes, not an hour.

Training and Support for Reviewers

Many reviewers, especially early-career researchers, benefit from guidance on how to construct a useful review. Providing a reviewer guide, sample reviews, or links to COPE’s ethical guidelines can improve quality and consistency. Some journals offer online courses or webinars on peer review best practices. The COPE Reviewer Resources page is an excellent starting point.

A short training module integrated into the invitation process can increase reviewer confidence and reduce the time needed to complete a review. Publishers can also create peer review networks that pair novice reviewers with experienced mentors for a trial period.

Handling Delays and Escalations

When a reviewer consistently misses deadlines, editors must act decisively. A three-strikes policy—where a reviewer with three late reviews is temporarily suspended—can deter chronic tardiness. For urgent manuscripts, transitioning to an alternative reviewer within 24 hours is feasible if the editorial team has a standby list.

Escalation to editorial board members if a manuscript stalls in review can also help. Board members can step in to review or find replacements quickly. Ultimately, the editor bears responsibility for moving the process forward, and a culture of accountability must permeate the team.

The Role of Publishers and Platforms

Publishers have a significant opportunity to reduce turnaround times through investment in infrastructure and policy. Centralized reviewer databases, shared across journals from the same publisher, can streamline matching. For example, Wiley’s Reviewer Locator and Springer Nature’s reviewer finder use machine learning to suggest appropriate referees instantly. Publishers can also provide standardized templates for review forms and automated reminder systems as part of their editorial platform offerings.

Additionally, publishers can incentivize timely reviews by offering publication fee waivers or discounts to reviewers who meet deadlines. Some have instituted a "reviewer credit" system where a completed review entitles the reviewer to a discount on their next submission. While efforts to directly pay reviewers remain debated, non-monetary incentives are widely accepted and effective.

The International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) and other identifiers help index journals, but more importantly, publishers should collaborate on cross-journal reviewer matching to avoid duplication of effort. Initiatives like the Think.Check.Submit campaign inform authors about publishing ethics, but similar cross-industry efforts for reviewer management could be beneficial.

Finally, transparent reporting of review times and acceptance rates in journal metrics encourages healthy competition and accountability. Journals that publicly track and benchmark their turnaround times often improve faster because they set measurable goals.

Conclusion

Reducing turnaround time in peer review for engineering manuscripts is a multifaceted challenge that requires combining operational improvements, technological tools, and cultural change. By streamlining editorial prescreening, expanding the reviewer pool, leveraging automation, and optimizing communication, journals can significantly accelerate the review process without compromising quality. Editors and publishers must champion these strategies, while authors and reviewers contribute to a culture of timely, constructive feedback. The ultimate goal is to advance the dissemination of engineering knowledge, enabling faster translation of research into practice. With intentional effort, the peer review system can become more efficient, equitable, and responsive to the needs of the scientific community.