Grant proposals are often (but not always) reviewed in batches, particularly in the case where a panel format is used in the review process. Therefore, adherence to deadlines is both particularly important and generally well enforced. In reviewing journal submissions, however, deadline enforcement is generally looser. That does not diminish the importance of timeliness in journal reviews.

Given the importance of the publication process to funding and promotion in the academic world, delayed publication can have a significant negative impact on an author. Furthermore, unnecessarily delaying a publication undercuts the fundamental reason for the existence of journals: providing up-to-date information about the latest developments in the field. Finally, anecdotal evidence suggests that at times reviewers may unfairly use their positions to delay publication by rivals. Sitting on papers rather than completing the reviews as required can allow time for reviewers to complete and submit their own research for publication.

The cover letter that comes with a request to review a paper or an application usually specifies a target date for completion of the review. If the reviewers anticipate not being able to complete the review by the target date, then they are requested to let the editor or program officer know so that someone else can be assigned to the review.