Nature Immunology 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a Nature Portfolio handling editor at Nature Immunology evaluates whether the immunology mechanism warrants Nature Immunology's selective editorial slots. About 80 to 85 percent of submissions are rejected at this stage. A desk rejection most often means the handling editor concluded that the work would fit better at a sister Nature Portfolio title (Nature Communications, Communications Biology) or that the broad-immunology audience fit is uncertain.

The Nature Portfolio editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, supplementary information separate, reporting checklists where applicable (ARRIVE for animal work, MIQE for quantitative PCR, CONSORT for any clinical-trial component, STROBE for observational immunology studies), cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation including IACUC and IRB approvals.

The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates immunology mechanism depth, broad-immunology audience fit, and the degree to which the work advances understanding of the field. Nature Portfolio guidance explicitly cites four criteria: degree of advancement, soundness of conclusions, extent of evidence supporting conclusions, and wide relevance.

In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the 4-editor Nature Immunology team. This editorial-team discussion is a defining feature of Nature Immunology's decision process. The conversation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Nature Portfolio handling editors at Nature Immunology typically invite two to three external reviewers. Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within 10 days, a notably tight Nature Portfolio target compared to other Nature specialty titles. The recruitment window can take 5 to 10 days because immunology reviewers with topic-matched expertise are scarce. Combined recruitment + 10-day review = the 3-week target Nature Immunology publishes.

After both reports return, the primary handling editor evaluates the recommendations and comments. The 3-week first-decision target applies to papers that reach external peer review.

• Rejection within 1 to 3 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.
• Rejection within 3 to 10 days: Handling editor desk rejection. Most rejections happen here.
• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the steepest Nature Portfolio filter and is now in editorial synthesis.
• Still Under Review after 8 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay despite the 10-day target. A polite inquiry via the submission portal is appropriate.
• Status changes to "Reports Received": Reports are in; expect a decision within 1 to 2 weeks.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Nature Immunology authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 4 weeks at Under Review puts you right past Nature Immunology's published 3-week target window; reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the primary handling editor preparing a recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for immunology specialists rather than slow reviews. If the portal still says Under Review at the 6-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the handling editor granted it. This is normal practice at Nature Portfolio even with the 10-day reviewer target.

What you should NOT do during the 4-to-6-week window is email the editorial office. Nature Portfolio handling editors at Nature Immunology are managing 30+ active papers across the 4-editor team; an inquiry at 4 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your Nature Immunology paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and handling editor cited:

Nature Communications is the most natural Nature Portfolio cascade because Nature Portfolio supports manuscript-transfer where the receiving editor can request reviewer reports from Nature Immunology, preserving substantial peer-review work. Nature Communications has a broader scope and an open-access publishing model. The transfer process takes 5 to 10 days.

Communications Biology is a Nature Portfolio open-access option for technically rigorous immunology papers where the broader-immunology audience appeal is narrower than Nature Immunology's bar.

Cell Reports is a Cell Press cascade option for mechanism-focused immunology papers. Cell Press operates independently; reports do not transfer, but Cell Reports consulting editors recognize Nature Portfolio reviewer reports informally and may move quickly on resubmissions.

Immunity is a Cell Press cascade for top-mechanism immunology papers where the Cell Press transparent peer-review system is preferred.

Nature Portfolio asks reviewers at Nature Immunology to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

Three patterns generate the most consistent reviewer concerns we see at Nature Immunology.

Mechanism without orthogonal confirmation. When the central immunology mechanism rests on one experimental approach, Nature Immunology reviewers consistently request a second orthogonal validation. The strongest revisions add complementary perturbation modalities. The 10-day reviewer target means initial reports often request quick second-validation runs rather than extensive new experiments.

Narrow immunology framing flagged for broad-audience fit. When the introduction frames the work too narrowly around one cell type or one disease context, broad-immunology framing concerns surface from at least one reviewer. The strongest manuscripts frame the introduction around broader immunology principles.

Nature Portfolio venue mismatch flagged by editor team. When the handling editor team concludes the work is sound but the broad-immunology audience appeal is uncertain, transfer offers to Nature Communications or Communications Biology are common.

Once the handling editor decides to send the paper for external review, Nature Immunology staff editors invite three reviewers (the 4-editor team often coordinates on borderline immunology papers) over 7 to 14 days because immunology subspecialty experts across innate, adaptive, infection, and autoimmunity domains are scarce. Status updates flow through the Nature Immunology for-authors how-to-submit portal; editorial-office queries can reach immunology@us.nature.com per the Nature Immunology contact page.

This page was created from Nature Portfolio's public author guidance at nature.com/ni/submission-guidelines/editorial-process, Nature Immunology editorial-process documentation describing the 4-editor team structure and 10-day reviewer target, Nature Portfolio peer-review guidance, and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Nature Immunology-targeted manuscripts. Numeric claims about desk-decision and review-time windows are sourced to Nature Portfolio editorial guidance.

For the Nature Portfolio immunology landscape beyond Nature Immunology, see Nature Communications (broader scope with open-access), Communications Biology (Nature Portfolio open-access), Nature Reviews Immunology (review article focus), and sister Cell Press titles (Immunity, Cell Reports). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is broad-immunology-advance (Nature Immunology), broader-multidisciplinary (Nature Communications), open-access (Communications Biology), or review-article (Nature Reviews Immunology).

Reviewers at Nature Immunology typically draw from one mechanism-focused immunology expert and one broader-cell-biology or clinical-translation specialist. The 10-day reviewer target rewards papers reviewers can quickly contextualize against the broader literature.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Nature Immunology broad-advancement-plus-orthogonal-validation bar before submission, our Nature Immunology pre-submission diagnostic flags the orthogonal-validation gaps and narrow-framing weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.