Does the review period of a journal have a time limit?

Journal peer review periods typically lack universally enforced time limits, though many journals establish internal targets or average timeframes. Submission complexity, reviewer availability, editor workload, and manuscript revision cycles significantly influence the actual duration. While some publishers encourage specific timelines, adherence remains discretionary rather than mandatory due to the voluntary nature of peer review and fluctuating demands on reviewer schedules. Therefore, reviewers are usually not bound by strict external deadlines imposed by the journal beyond its internal guidance. The fundamental principle relies on reviewer professionalism and willingness to contribute within a reasonable period. Authors should consult the journal's official "Information for Authors" or similar guidelines, which may state expected or average review times, but rarely specify fixed, inflexible cutoffs applicable to all submissions. Direct communication with the handling editor is appropriate only after significantly exceeding stated averages without update. To manage expectations, authors should proactively research a journal's typical review duration metrics, often provided on its website or databases like Scopus. During submission, note any specific timelines mentioned in the guidelines. If the review period substantially exceeds the journal's average or published estimate without communication, a polite inquiry to the editorial office is reasonable to seek a status update. This approach helps authors plan while respecting the inherent process variability.