eLife publishes outstanding research in the life sciences and biomedicine, from the most fundamental and theoretical work, through to translational, applied, and clinical research. Our 32 Senior editors and 282-member Board of Reviewing Editors are among the most respected and accomplished individuals in their fields – from human genetics and neuroscience to biophysics and epidemiology. Where necessary, our Senior editors will also consult with external guest editors to evaluate new submissions.
DAYS TO INITIAL DECISION ----4 days
DAYS TO POST-REVIEW DECISION ---33 days
DAYS SUBMISSION TO ACCEPTANCE----116 days
At eLife, we’ve taken a fresh approach to peer review to save you time, and to provide clear direction and constructive input. Decisions are quick and efficient; revision requests are designed to be clear and manageable; and multiple rounds of revision are usually avoided. Here’s how it works:
Initial decisions are delivered quickly
Our Senior editors decide whether initial submissions are appropriate for in-depth peer review, usually in consultation with members of the Board of Reviewing Editors.
Active scientists make all decisions
A Senior editor assigns a member of the Board of Reviewing Editors to oversee the peer-review process. The Reviewing editor usually reviews the article him or herself, calling on one or two additional reviewers as needed.
Revision requests are consolidated
Reviewers get together online to discuss their recommendations, refining their feedback, and striving to provide clear and concise guidance. If the work needs essential revisions before it can be published, the Reviewing editor incorporates those requirements into a single set of instructions.
Limited rounds of revision
Additional rounds of revision are largely eliminated, as the Reviewing editor is able to assess most revised submissions without further outside review.
Decisions and responses are available for all to read
In the interests of openness and transparency we publish the most substantive parts of the decision letter after review and the associated author responses.