What is the time limit for reviewing an article?

About 3 weeks is realistic, with an option to extend a deadline for specific busy periods (e.g. teaching, conferences)

For me two weeks is ideal.

2-weeks is reasonable

I believe 2 weeks is enough for a full length research article

Two weeks

I usually finish a review of scientific article in two weeks time. 

In my opinion it should not take more than 2-3 weeks. Reviewer  should accept to review only when they can submit the manuscript on stipulated time.

Not more than 3 weeks. It might be extended if you were new to the methodologies employed. Your schedule also matters.

2-3 weeks. It also depends upon the quality and complexity of the article, and the availability of time with the reviewer.

It depends on the availability of time with the reviewer, I try to complete it within two weeks if I accept to review and if not respond to the editor within three days.

commonly three weeks

Two weeks is enough 

two weeks

I think 3 weeks is enough

3 weeks. 

I guess 2-3 weeks are a realistic time, but it depends on the journal. Sometimes a paper remains months without review.

3 weeks, but it does depend quite a bit on the article and its complexity of analysis or interpretation.

2-3 weeks is ideal

if i cannot offer a review within the next couple of weeks I usually reject the invitation. It is important the reviewing process to be quick rather than having the authors waiting for a very long time (for more likely a rejection decision). Once it took me more than a year to hear back from a journal and i don't think that this is acceptable if we want to promote knowledge.    

3 weeks with an option to extend easily without looking for hidden emails and lengthy support. 

i think 2-4 weeks maximum.  remember the reviewer also has other obligations and should do a thorough job on the manuscript.  It is better not to make this process a hurried one because the authors would have spent time in the lab as we as time to write the manuscript. 

1-2 weeks if no other big tasks exixts

This may depend on the type of article. Typically, two weeks will be enough for a research article and three weeks for a review article.

Two weeks, with the possibility for extension if the reviewer is crucial and temporarily very busy.
Longer periods just mean the reviewer is going to put it "on the pile" and ignore it for a few weeks before even starting.

Three weeks are reasonable.

It is commonly about two weeks

For me the maximum review time is 2 weeks. I have 3 articles in reviewer assigned stage more than 3 months now. This is very frustrating.

No more to ten days.

Overall, 2 weeks seems a reasonable time to complete a review. When reviewing a manuscript, I usually first read the paper including tables and figures and make notes; this takes about an hour.  Then, usually on another day, I  start writing my comments such as relevance of the research and findings, novelty, questions for clarification and points for revising. This can take, depending on the quality of the manuscript, up to 2 hours. When reviewing a manuscript, a reviewer should not just write a few lines, but should take time to help the authors to improve the text (unlesss the paper is so poor that it should get rejected). 

One to two weeks is usually enough to review a paper

Le délai pour examiner un article peut varier en fonction du journal ou de la publication. En général, le délai peut aller de 2 à 4 semaines

2 weeks or 14 business days is the norm, but an extension can usually be granted.

2 weeks, 3 weeks maximum.

It depends on the type of article, in my view, I think the time needed between (4-30) hours.

In Medicine and Nanotechnology I usually got 10 days for the review. But reviewers of ny submission sometimes do it in a couple of monthes. For Elsevier it is common, for BMS - often, for MDPI - usually not more then 2 weeks

 The time allocated for reviewing an article usually varies depending on the journal's guidelines, but it commonly falls within a 2 to 4-week range. Some journals may provide an extended period, particularly for more detailed or complex articles, or if multiple rounds of review are necessary. 

A maximum 2 weeks is realistic to review the article 

This varies much according to the journal requirements, which itself depends on the field; most journals now give 10 to 15 days, which is according to my expertise (as associate editor and reviewers for many journal) too short. For most journal, reviewers can ask (and are granted) an extension of one week or two. The realistic time to make a good review of a paper is one month, although this might depend on the paper itself, if it falls exactly within the expertise of the reviewer, he can make it in one week, otherwise one month is good average. 

A realistic time is 10 days, but depens also by journal rules. As author we expect that the review time to be short, as a reviewer always we ask for more time. 

I usually do a review in 1-2 days.

 The standard time limit for reviewing the article is 10 to 15 days. This timeframe allows for a thorough and critical review, enabling you to gain valuable insights and contribute effectively. 

It depends on the content and free time, 1-2 weeks are enough if you are not too busy.  

The duration for article review varies depending on the type of article and the schedule of activities. Typically, reviewing an article will be between 2 to 4 weeks unless stated otherwise

2 weeks to four weeks is standard. I would also appreciate getting feedback on time when I have submitted a paper for review. More than 6 weeks should be considered unfair given how much anxiety it may built to young scholars

In summary, the typical time limit for reviewing an article ranges from 2 to 4 weeks, but it can vary depending on the journal and field. The review process offers significant professional benefits to the reviewer, including recognition, networking, and skill development

The ideal time limit for reviewing an academic article can vary depending on several factors, including the complexity of the paper, the reviewer's familiarity with the topic, and the specific guidelines provided by the journal or conference. However, based on my experience completing a review within 2 to 4 weeks is typically reasonable and aligns with common expectations in academia. This timeframe is generally ideal for balancing the need for a thorough review with the practicalities of academic publishing timelines.

2-4 weeks

3-4 weeks should be enough. If you need more time then you are probably not that interested in the manuscript's topic, as you do not prioritize reeding it, and should not have accepted reviewing it in the first place.

2-4 weeks 

I agree with many others here who have suggested 2-4 weeks.  That time period is a nice balance between what is fair for the authors who are waiting on a decision before moving on, and reasonable for reviewers in that it should account for potential upcoming vacation time (believe it or not, some investigators actually take vacation!) and/or other commitments.  I think if it's much longer, then there is a tendency (for me, at least) to wait until closer to the deadline anyway.

Two weeks maximum

It depends on the journal. Most of the journals ask 2 weeks for the revision

1-2 weeks 

I think 1-2 weeks should be enough. The longer we wait for peer reviews, the older the data would get. So, the sooner the better (with quality of course). If your time is tight, simply don't accept the review invitation.

I usually spent two periods of time. A first one (about 2 hours) to read the paper and note the main results obtained, the quality of techniques used, and the robustness of results obtaines and fiability of interpretation. Then, few days after, I write my comments (both positive and negative) and analyze the relevancy of the references cited.

It depends on the journal and the availability of reviewers in the field relevant to your article. My colleague, for instance, had to wait a year to publish an article due to a lack of available reviewers. This highlights the importance of having enough reviewers to ensure a timely and efficient review process.

1-2 months

1 month

The time limit should be specified by the journal (etc) and considered "agreed to" if the invitation is accepted. That means there should be sanctions for failure to comply, and an appeal process. Most journals don't seem to have the wherewithal to institute and enforce such criteria — much as they don't offer to pay reviewers or associate editors. The system is not robust.  

One month is ideal for such process. It will allow the potential reviewer appen time to do others.

I only agree to review a manuscript if I can to that within 3-5 days from the receipt of an invitation. We are living in a rapidly changing world; things that I postpone for weeks can easily be disregarded completely.

I used to review  a paper within 2 to 3 days depending upon the time I get from my routine schedule.

1- 2 months.  This much depend on reviewers availability