How long does it generally take for papers to be accepted?

[LordKek90]

Hello, I'll be applying this cycle and have a second author paper that is going to be submitted to Nature this month. All of the past papers in my lab have been accepted to Nature (around 8 or 9 since my PI is really well known in this field) so he's confident that this paper will be accepted as well. I put a TON of time into helping with the manuscript as well as with the experiments so I would really like to add this to my AMCAS in June, however, I'm not sure how long Nature takes to accept papers. I know the time between acceptance and publication can be long, but what about the time between submission and "conditional acceptances"? Even is the paper isn't accepted by my application period, is there any use in putting the title of the manuscript and which journal it's being reviewed at (meaning the research is novel and wasn't rejected the first round)? Anybody have experience with this? Keep in mind the manuscript will be submitted this month.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lucca]

Nature is known for pretty quick turnaround. You will probably know within a couple of weeks if your paper is being sent for peer review or rejected without review. Once it is out for review you can put on your app “Under Review” since that is a better indicator than “Submitted” that the work was serious.

You will probably hear back well before June as to whether or not the paper was accepted. If you get a suggestion for minor or major revisions then you will have to resubmit but it will probably be accepted in the long run.

Also nature (and basically any reputable journal) publishes their editorial process online:
Editorial criteria and processes | Nature

 

[LordKek90]

Nature is known for pretty quick turnaround. You will probably know within a couple of weeks if your paper is being sent for peer review or rejected without review. Once it is out for review you can put on your app “Under Review” since that is a better indicator than “Submitted” that the work was serious.

You will probably hear back well before June as to whether or not the paper was accepted. If you get a suggestion for minor or major revisions then you will have to resubmit but it will probably be accepted in the long run.

Also nature (and basically any reputable journal) publishes their editorial process online:

Thanks for the response. Is this really the case? I went on Nature's page and most of their Letters and Articles had a "submission date" and "accepted date" difference of around 9-12 months. This is what I was worried about.

 

[Lucca]

Thanks for the response. Is this really the case? I went on Nature's page and most of their Letters and Articles had a "submission date" and "accepted date" of around 9-12 months. This is what I was worried about.

If you submit today, hear back within 2 weeks that your paper is under review, wait another two weeks for reviewers to send in their reports and editors to make a decision, get “major revisions”, have to do like 3 more large experiments to resubmit the paper, and re submit all over again then yes the publication process can take months and months. Either in the app or in an update letter, this paper will be part of your application if it makes it to review though.

You should be prepared to anticipate reviewer feedback and be planning for the experiments they might ask for. The PI you work for will have a good idea of what those might be if you ask them.

 

[LordKek90]

If you submit today, hear back within 2 weeks that your paper is under review, wait another two weeks for reviewers to send in their reports and editors to make a decision, get “major revisions”, have to do like 3 more large experiments to resubmit the paper, and re submit all over again then yes the publication process can take months and months. Either in the app or in an update letter, this paper will be part of your application if it makes it to review though.

You should be prepared to anticipate reviewer feedback and be planning for the experiments they might ask for. The PI you work for will have a good idea of what those might be if you ask them.

Ok, that's great to hear, thanks. So what I'm getting from this is there's a good chance it'll be accepted before secondaries in July if it does end up getting accepted? Also, if it doesn't get accepted by June during my primaries, I can list it as under review with the journal name and authors/title?

 

[Lucca]

Ok, that's great to hear, thanks. So what I'm getting from this is there's a good chance it'll be accepted before secondaries in July if it does end up getting accepted? Also, if it doesn't get accepted by June during my primaries, I can list it as under review with the journal name and authors/title?

Yah. IDK about accepted or not since I’m not familiar with your field or work. You can also send an update letter during the cycle saying your paper was accepted if it takes longer than 8 months for this process to play out (which it might, I can’t predict the future or know the nature of your work.)

 

[LordKek90]

Yah. IDK about accepted or not since I’m not familiar with your field or work. You can also send an update letter during the cycle saying your paper was accepted if it takes longer than 8 months for this process to play out (which it might, I can’t predict the future or know the nature of your work.)

Thank you so much for the information! And I would sending an update if this process took longer than 6 months since I plan to send secondaries as early as possible which I think is in July?

But I'm glad that being able to add the manuscript under review with the journal name, authors, and title will at least have some merit on my AMCAS.

You should be prepared to anticipate reviewer feedback and be planning for the experiments they might ask for. The PI you work for will have a good idea of what those might be if you ask them.

And yeah, my PI is actually already anticipating the experiments we'll have to do, lol.

 

[LizzyM]

Under review means nothing. "In press", once something has been accepted for publication, can take months. I had a positive pregnancy test and a paper accepted in the same week and the paper and the baby came out at the same time.

 

[LordKek90]

Under review means nothing. "In press", once something has been accepted for publication, can take months. I had a positive pregnancy test and a paper accepted in the same week and the paper and the baby came out at the same time.

Nature rejects vast majority ofpapers before peer review. I’ll find the source I’m on mobile but I’m certain it’s around 85%. Only 60% of peer reviewed papers get published overall so once it’s assigned for peer review there’s a large chance for publication. Research has to be groundbreaking and novel before peer review According to their website. In review should mean something in that case as I’m not submitting rubbish.

Anyways, I know accepted to publication takes a while, but this was more from submission to accepted or even submission to conditional accepted.

 

[LizzyM]

Nature rejects vast majority ofpapers before peer review. I’ll find the source I’m on mobile but I’m certain it’s around 85%. Only 60% of peer reviewed papers get published overall so once it’s assigned for peer review there’s a large chance for publication. Research has to be groundbreaking and novel before peer review According to their website. In review should mean something in that case as I’m not submitting rubbish.

Anyways, I know accepted to publication takes a while, but this was more from submission to accepted or even submission to conditional accepted.

Most clinicians, even those at academic centers, will not be familiar with what "under review" means specifically for Nature. Frankly, until it is "in press" it is not a publication.

 

[Robin-jay]

Nature rejects vast majority ofpapers before peer review. I’ll find the source I’m on mobile but I’m certain it’s around 85%. Only 60% of peer reviewed papers get published overall so once it’s assigned for peer review there’s a large chance for publication. Research has to be groundbreaking and novel before peer review According to their website. In review should mean something in that case as I’m not submitting rubbish.

Anyways, I know accepted to publication takes a while, but this was more from submission to accepted or even submission to conditional accepted.

Depends on the lab you work in.

If you have a PI with several publications in Nature, then even if your research is sub-par for the journal, its most likely going to be accepted. So while getting into Nature is a huge accomplish, I've seen many people do it as a back-end author that contributed very little to the paper but worked in a lab with a PI and grad. students that do 99% of the thinking and working. (I'm not saying you didn't contribute by any means, I'ms saying that the PI makes more of a difference in what journal you get published in than the actually research).

 

[LordKek90]

Most clinicians, even those at academic centers, will not be familiar with what "under review" means specifically for Nature. Frankly, until it is "in press" it is not a publication.

Ok, if the manuscript is still under review by the time of my primary, I will just put it in under my research experience box. If it's accepted, it will be it's own category? Also, you mentioned that from accepted to published took you 9 months. What about submission to accepted? And conditional acceptances?

Also, since it will most likely be accepted/published before October, would this make for a good update letter if I don't get to include it by the time of my secondaries?

Thanks!

 

[LizzyM]

Ok, if the manuscript is still under review by the time of my primary, I will just put it in under my research experience box. If it's accepted, it will be it's own category? Also, you mentioned that from accepted to published took you 9 months. What about submission to accepted? And conditional acceptances?

Also, since it will most likely be accepted/published before October, would this make for a good update letter?

Thanks!

You can write in your description section that you have submitted a manuscript to Nature and it is under review.
If it is accepted, it can have it's own box in the experience section with the tag "publication".

I really don't remember very much about submitted to accepted... a couple months maybe, but keep in mind, my publications were submitted the old fashioned way, on paper by US mail. Things might be faster now. In the recent past, most of my published works have been book chapters and editorials and those are very different time tables.

 

[LordKek90]

You can write in your description section that you have submitted a manuscript to Nature and it is under review.
If it is accepted, it can have it's own box in the experience section with the tag "publication".

I really don't remember very much about submitted to accepted... a couple months maybe, but keep in mind, my publications were submitted the old fashioned way, on paper by US mail. Things might be faster now. In the recent past, most of my published works have been book chapters and editorials and those are very different time tables.

Thank you so much for the advice! I don't know much about the application process, but in the instance that it doesn't get accepted before my secondaries that I will be submitting in July, would this be a good update letter around September/October/November?

 

[LizzyM]

Thank you so much for the advice! I don't know much about the application process, but in the instance that it doesn't get accepted before my secondaries that I will be submitting in July, would this be a good update letter around September/October/November?

It would be grounds for an update letter and could tip you into an interview but it is just as likely not to make a difference. Where it would make a difference would be for MD/PhD.

 

[aldol16]

You can indicate in your application that the paper was submitted and its title. You can include the journal name but it won't hold much weight until it's accepted. You shouldn't exclude it altogether just because it's not an accepted publication. While many on here use the reductio ad absurdem claim that anybody can create a poop smear on a bag and submit it to Nature, I seriously doubt that that has ever happened in the history of Nature publication (and it's a long history). What's more likely is that sub-quality papers are submitted and get rejected from Nature and go to more field-specific journals. Or the paper has significant flaws that then need to be addressed. But a paper submission still means that you have completed a substantial body of work and your PI thought that that work was complete and high-impact enough to submit to Nature.

 

[aldol16]

Nature is known for pretty quick turnaround. You will probably know within a couple of weeks if your paper is being sent for peer review or rejected without review. Once it is out for review you can put on your app “Under Review” since that is a better indicator than “Submitted” that the work was serious.

If you submit today, hear back within 2 weeks that your paper is under review, wait another two weeks for reviewers to send in their reports and editors to make a decision, get “major revisions”, have to do like 3 more large experiments to resubmit the paper, and re submit all over again then yes the publication process can take months and months. Either in the app or in an update letter, this paper will be part of your application if it makes it to review though.

It generally takes only a little amount of time for reviewers to be assigned (within a week usually) and then a lot longer for reviews to come in (4-8 weeks). Nature actually has one of the longer turnaround times (in terms of time from submission to acceptance) because the reviewers will want to make very very sure that whatever effect or phenomenon you are measuring actually exists. So they'll request a lot of follow-up information that must then be collected, compiled, and stuffed into the SI. I would encourage you to take a look at some of the SIs for a sense of how extensive the review process for journals like Nature and Science are.

 

[Goro]

You can indicate in your application that the paper was submitted and its title. You can include the journal name but it won't hold much weight until it's accepted. You shouldn't exclude it altogether just because it's not an accepted publication. While many on here use the reductio ad absurdem claim that anybody can create a poop smear on a bag and submit it to Nature, I seriously doubt that that has ever happened in the history of Nature publication (and it's a long history). What's more likely is that sub-quality papers are submitted and get rejected from Nature and go to more field-specific journals. Or the paper has significant flaws that then need to be addressed. But a paper submission still means that you have completed a substantial body of work and your PI thought that that work was complete and high-impact enough to submit to Nature.

My analogy was to make the point that we don't care about submitted works. Neither does NIH for Biosketch purposes.

 

[aldol16]

My analogy was to make the point that we don't care about submitted works. Neither does NIH for Biosketch purposes.

There's a difference between having a completed body of work and doing research for a few years with only a few posters to show for it. Some adcoms care about this; some don't. I take it that you yourself don't care for this but at many of the research schools, research is important and this can be an important distinction. I'm not claiming that anybody is gonna look at it and think "Oh, a Nature paper!" But it's a tangible product of research. Just because an undergraduate completes a thesis that isn't a published paper, does that mean that they shouldn't mention it at all? No, because it's one level of research achievement. Writing a paper and submitting it is no different.

These are pre-meds, not grad students or post-docs. They're not submitting this for the purpose of an NIH grant or Biosketch.