{"id":30163,"date":"2026-09-21T15:06:45","date_gmt":"2026-09-21T12:06:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/?p=30163"},"modified":"2026-09-21T15:31:09","modified_gmt":"2026-09-21T12:31:09","slug":"scopus-publikaciya-6-12-misyaciv","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/scopus-publikaciya-6-12-misyaciv\/","title":{"rendered":"The wait time for publication in Scopus has increased to 6\u201312 months: what has changed over the past two years"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

A researcher submits an article in September. A thesis defense, performance review, or grant report is scheduled for the spring\u2014it seems like there\u2019s plenty of time. But by March, the manuscript still hasn\u2019t been accepted: one journal rejected it during the editorial screening, another has been delayed in finding reviewers, and after resubmission, the cycle started all over again.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Two years ago, this process often took 3\u20134 months. By 2026, for many authors, the full cycle from submission to indexing in Scopus may already take 6\u201312 months or longer. This is not a universal timeframe for every journal, but the risk of delays has become significantly higher.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

There is more than one reason. The system is under pressure from a number of factors: a growing number of manuscripts, a shortage of reviewers, stricter editorial screening, resubmissions following rejections, and risks associated with changes in the status of journals.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Let's take a look at what exactly has changed over the past two years and how to plan a Scopus publication if you have a specific deadline.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

What makes up the \"queue\" for publication? <\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Authors often refer to the entire process from manuscript submission to database entry as a \u201cqueue.\u201d However, Scopus itself does not peer-review articles or place authors in a queue. Scopus indexes the content of journals included in its coverage.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In fact, the process consists of three distinct stages:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>

  1. The Review Process\u2014From Manuscript Submission to the Editorial Board\u2019s Final Decision.<\/span><\/li>
  2. The publishing cycle\u2014from the acceptance of an article to its actual publication.<\/span><\/li>
  3. Indexing\u2014from the publication of the article to the appearance of an entry in Scopus.<\/span><\/li><\/ol>

    The process tends to take the longest when a manuscript isn't accepted on the first submission. Each new attempt means a new editorial cycle at a new journal.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t

    Reason No. 1: The number of submissions is growing faster than the peer-review system <\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    In the first quarter of 2026, journals on the ScholarOne platform received 33% more manuscripts than during the same period in 2025. The growth rate also accelerated sharply: a year earlier, the increase was 17%.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

    More manuscripts mean more work for editors and reviewers. And the number of experts willing to promptly take on new articles for review is not growing at the same rate.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

    For the author, this often seems straightforward: the manuscript remains \u201cUnder Review\u201d for weeks or months, while the editorial staff continues to search for the right experts.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t

    Reason #2. A single rejection can add a few more months <\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    The most common mistake is to plan your timeline based solely on information from a single journal. Even if the editorial board specifies an estimated review period of 8\u201312 weeks, that doesn\u2019t mean the article will be accepted on the first try.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

    A typical scenario looks like this:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>