Nature Communications 'With Editor': The Desk-Screen Stage Explained

Nature Communications operates Nature Portfolio's broad multidisciplinary open-access model with an in-house team of full-time professional editors and no external editorial board, and the "With Editor" desk-screen phase is where that team does its heaviest work. The handling editor is a staff editor with subfield-relevant expertise who reads across all of science, not a working academic in your subfield. The handling editor reads the paper, consults with the broader Nature Communications editorial team, and evaluates novelty, conceptual or methodological advance, and potential interest to the journal's interdisciplinary readership before deciding whether to recruit reviewers. Because the editors are full-time professionals, the desk screen is fast: the median time to a first editorial decision, including desk rejections, is 11.4 days.

Nature Communications editorial culture is decisive at the desk screen: roughly 50 to 60 percent of submissions are desk-rejected here, usually within 7 to 14 days. During triage the handling editor asks "what changed because of this work?" If the answer requires specialist knowledge to appreciate, the paper is already in trouble at the screen, which is why the advance must be stated in the first two sentences of the abstract rather than built up to.

The "With Editor" desk screen is where the 50-to-60-percent desk-reject decision is made, before any referee is involved. The handling editor evaluates whether the advance is significant beyond your immediate subfield and clear to a non-specialist editor. A desk rejection at this screen most often means the work is solid but too specialized for Nature Communications' broad readership, the advance is not big enough for a journal at this impact level, or the field is saturated with similar findings. A desk rejection is not a quality judgment; it usually means the work is better suited to a more specialized venue. None of this is a referee judgment; it is the editor reading the abstract and asking what changed because of this work for an interdisciplinary audience.

Before the paper reaches the handling editor, automated and staff quality checks confirm format, run plagiarism screening, and verify basic scope. A failed quality check returns the paper before any editor screens the science.

This is the core of the "With Editor" phase. The handling editor reads the paper and screens for scope fit, significance, technical quality on first read, and clear presentation. About 50 to 60 percent of papers are rejected here, and the rejection email is usually brief because the journal handles over 60,000 submissions per year. If you are still Under Consideration after 14 days without a rejection, that is a strong signal you cleared the desk screen.

If the desk screen passes, the handling editor recruits 2 to 4 reviewers (typically three for borderline-fit papers) and continues internal editorial consultation in parallel. Recruitment is often the slowest step and can take 1 to 3 weeks because reviewers across multiple disciplines are required and reviewer acceptance rates have dropped across all journals. The portal status stays "Under Consideration" throughout, so substantive editorial movement is invisible to you.

Because Nature Communications folds every substage into "Under Consideration," you cannot see the desk screen end directly. The reliable proxy is duration: a status that lasts only a few days usually still means desk assessment, while a status that passes 14 days without a rejection usually means the paper cleared the desk screen and is in reviewer recruitment, active review, or editor synthesis.

• Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Fast desk rejection on scope or significance.
• Rejection within 7 to 14 days: Standard handling-editor desk rejection per the 50-to-60-percent figure.
• Still Under Consideration at 2 to 6 weeks: Normal; past the 14-day mark you have almost certainly cleared the desk screen.
• Still Under Consideration at 8 to 10 weeks: A polite one-line status inquiry through the manuscript record is reasonable.
• Still Under Consideration past 10 weeks: Something may be stuck (a reviewer dropped out); follow up.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Nature Communications authors during the editorial-screening window. The honest answer: no, 2 weeks past submission without a rejection is a strong signal you have cleared the handling-editor desk screen and your paper is with reviewers or in reviewer recruitment. The 11.4-day median first decision includes fast desk rejections, so surviving past 14 days usually means the "With Editor" desk-screen phase is over. Most delays from this point come from reviewer-recruitment timing across multiple disciplines rather than editorial neglect, because the in-house professional-editor model resolves the desk screen quickly once the breadth question is settled.

What you should NOT do during the first 8 weeks is email the editorial office expecting a substage breakdown. Nature Communications handles over 60,000 submissions per year, so an inquiry before 8 weeks rarely produces useful information. After 8 to 10 weeks, a one-line status inquiry through the manuscript record is reasonable.

If your Nature Communications paper is desk-rejected at the "With Editor" screen, the cascade depends on what the handling editor cited:

Science Advances is the AAAS broad-scope open-access cascade; a strong brand for interdisciplinary work where the APC fits.

PNAS is the NAS broad-significance cascade with no APC for most papers and a multidisciplinary readership.

Scientific Reports is the Nature Portfolio validity-first open-access cascade for technically sound work where broad significance is not the bar.

Communications journals (Communications Biology, Communications Medicine, Communications Chemistry, Communications Physics, Communications Earth & Environment) are the Nature Portfolio specialty open-access cascades, and Nature Portfolio supports manuscript transfer.

Field-specific society journals are the cascade when the finding is primarily of interest to one specialty community that a broad journal would not reach efficiently.

The "With Editor" decision is not a referee evaluation; it is a desk screen against four criteria. The table maps each to what you can confirm while you wait.

In our pre-submission review work with Nature Communications manuscripts, three named submission shapes reliably predict desk-screen failure at the "With Editor" phase, before any referee is invited. We see these across hundreds of manuscripts we have reviewed, and they consistently predict whether a paper clears the desk or stalls. Nature Communications editors are full-time professionals who read across all of science, so the screen is not a domain-expert evaluation; it is a breadth-and-coherence test the abstract and results section have to pass.

The specialist paper without a clear advance narrative. We find this pattern in roughly 40 percent of the Nature Communications desk rejections we review. The science is rigorous, but the advance over existing literature is not obvious to a non-specialist editor at the desk screen. During triage the editor reads the abstract and asks "what changed because of this work?" If the answer requires specialist knowledge to appreciate, the paper is already in trouble. In practice, papers that state the advance in the first two sentences of the abstract have a dramatically higher desk-clearance rate than papers that build up to the advance.

Check whether your NComms abstract clears the desk screen→

The methodologically sound paper that does not justify the broad-journal slot. Nature Communications editors screen for whether the advance justifies publication in a high-cost broad-scope journal versus a lower-cost specialist venue. We notice that papers which could appear in a field-specific journal without any reframing are the ones most likely to be desk-rejected, even when the methodology is strong. The hidden screen the editor applies is whether the work belongs in a broad interdisciplinary journal rather than a specialty title that would reach the right audience better. Mapping that fit before submission, in the cover letter and abstract, reduces the avoidable desk reject.

Check whether your NComms fit is screen-ready→

The paper with a fragmented results section. This sinks manuscripts that pass the scope and significance screens. We observe that Nature Communications editors reject papers where the results feel like a collection of loosely related experiments rather than a single coherent story. Per SciRev community data, reviewers consistently cite "lack of a clear narrative thread" as a top criticism. In our experience, roughly 35 percent of papers we review have a results section that reads like three separate papers compressed into one, and this pattern predicts editorial concern at the desk before any referee sees it.

Check whether your NComms results section reads as one story→

This guide tells you what Nature Communications editors look for while the manuscript is being screened. The review tells you whether YOUR paper passes that desk screen before the decision arrives. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting Nature Communications and peer Nature Portfolio venues; the named patterns above are the same ones handling editors flag at the desk screen. 60-day money-back guarantee. We do not train AI on your manuscript and delete it within 24 hours.

This page helps Nature Communications authors turn a static Under Consideration label into a concrete screening-window plan: check the interdisciplinary advance, abstract framing, results-section coherence, and broad-versus-specialist fit before the handling editor finishes the desk screen.

Of the 82 manuscripts our team reviewed for this Nature Communications status-page pattern sample, the strongest screening-window signal was whether the abstract stated the interdisciplinary advance in the first two sentences before the handling editor had to infer it from the technical result.

This page was created from Nature Communications editorial-process pages, Nature Communications author commitments, Nature Portfolio submission guidance, Clarivate JCR 2024 context, SciRev author-reported timing, a live review of public search results for "nature communications with editor" queries in June 2026 (where the ranking results were generic cross-journal explainers from author-services sites rather than Nature Communications-specific desk-screen timing), and Manusights pre-submission review work with Nature Communications status and desk-screen cases.

Source limitation: Nature Communications does not break out substages in the portal, so neither the journal's public materials nor the dashboard reveal whether you are in the desk screen, reviewer recruitment, or active review. In practical author terms, the useful task during the "With Editor" / Under Consideration wait is to read the timing rather than the label and to connect the desk screen to the abstract advance, results coherence, and broad-versus-specialist fit you can prepare before the handling editor decides.

For the broad-scope open-access landscape beyond Nature Communications, see Science Advances (AAAS broad-scope), PNAS (NAS multidisciplinary, no APC for most), Scientific Reports (Nature Portfolio validity-first), eLife (Reviewed Preprint), and Nature Portfolio Communications journals. Because the portal keeps the "With Editor" desk screen and the referee stage under the single "Under Consideration" label, the Nature Communications Under Consideration guide covers how the full label behaves once your paper is past the desk screen.

Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and the "With Editor" desk screen is where that triage happens inside the Under Consideration label. Preparing a redirect plan and a coherent revision response before the screen ends accelerates the next step substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Nature Communications broad-interdisciplinary-advance bar before the desk screen, our Nature Communications pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and completeness weaknesses most likely to end a paper at the desk.