Nature Methods 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a Nature Portfolio handling editor at Nature Methods evaluates whether the method advance and biological demonstration warrant Nature Methods's selective editorial slots. About 80 to 85 percent of submissions are rejected at this stage within roughly 1 week per Nature Portfolio editorial-process guidance. A desk rejection most often means the handling editor concluded that the method advance is incremental or that the biological demonstration is insufficient to justify Nature Methods's selectivity.

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), cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, code-availability statement (Nature Methods requires deposited code for any computational method), and data-availability statement.

The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates the method advance, biological demonstration depth, and wide relevance to method-developer audiences. Nature Portfolio's published guidance confirms the handling editor communicates the initial decision usually within one week of submission.

In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed at the Nature Methods editor meeting where peer handling editors at sister Nature Portfolio titles weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at Nature Methods, Nature Communications, or Nature Biotechnology. This editorial-team discussion runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 2 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Nature Portfolio handling editors at Nature Methods typically invite two to three external reviewers, sometimes more if special advice is needed. The recruitment window can take 7 to 14 days because methods reviewers with topic-matched expertise (e.g., imaging-method specialists, computational-method experts, single-cell-method developers) are scarce.

Once reviewers agree to review, Nature Methods editors request that a reviewer return their report typically within 1 to 2 weeks. Most referees honor the prior agreement with Nature to deliver a report within 2 weeks or other agreed time limit. The 56-day first-revision-report average reflects reviewer-extension reality across the typical recruitment-plus-review cycle. Reviewer reports for Nature Methods tend to be thorough; 2000 to 4000 word reports are typical for primary research papers.

After both reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. In the best-case scenario, the process from submission to acceptance will take just a few months. Occasionally papers go through multiple revisions over a year or more, though Nature Methods tries to avoid more than two rounds of peer review.

• Rejection within 1 to 3 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.
• Rejection within 3 to 10 days: Lead editor desk rejection. Most rejections happen here per the ~1-week median.
• Still Under Review after 2 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the steepest Nature Portfolio filter.
• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay despite the 2-week 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 Methods authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 5 weeks at Under Review is normal mid-cycle given the 9.7-day first-decision average and 56-day first-revision-report average. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the handling editor preparing a recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for methods specialists rather than slow reviews. If the portal still says Under Review at the 8-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 2-week reviewer target.

What you should NOT do during the 5-to-8-week window is email the editorial office. Nature Portfolio handling editors at Nature Methods are managing 40+ active papers; an inquiry at 5 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your Nature Methods 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 Methods, 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.

Nature Biotechnology is a Nature Portfolio cascade option for biotechnology-method papers where the technology advance is stronger than the biological demonstration framing.

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

Bioinformatics or eLife Methods are independent cascade options for computational-method papers where Nature Methods's biology-demonstration requirement is too strict. eLife reviews under public preprint conditions.

Nature Portfolio asks reviewers at Nature Methods 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 Methods.

Benchmarking under-documented surface as reviewer requests for clarification. When head-to-head benchmarking against state-of-the-art alternatives is thin, Nature Methods reviewers consistently request expanded benchmarking. The strongest revisions add quantitative comparison tables against ≥3 prior methods on the same biological question.

Biological demonstration weakness flagged. When the method paper is light on biological demonstration (e.g., the method works on a toy example but is not shown to enable new biology), reviewers consistently request stronger applied demonstration. The strongest manuscripts pair method development with a biology-discovery use case.

Code availability and reproducibility gaps. When code is hosted in a personal repository without versioning, documentation, or test data, reviewers consistently request improvements before issuing a final decision. The strongest revisions migrate code to a permanent repository with versioning, documentation, and example data.

This page was created from Nature Portfolio's public author guidance at nature.com/nmeth/submission-guidelines/editorial-process, Nature Methods editorial-process documentation including the 1-2 week reviewer target and 9.7-day author-reported first-decision average, Nature Portfolio peer-review guidance, and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Nature Methods-targeted manuscripts.

For the Nature Portfolio methods landscape beyond Nature Methods, see Nature Communications (broader scope with open-access), Nature Biotechnology (biotechnology focus), Nature Protocols (protocol focus), and Communications Biology (Nature Portfolio open-access). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is method-advance-with-biology (Nature Methods), technology-translation (Nature Biotechnology), protocol-document (Nature Protocols), or open-access (Communications Biology).

Reviewers at Nature Methods typically draw from one method-development specialist and one biological-application expert. Preparing a response template that addresses both perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Nature Methods method-advance-plus-biological-demonstration bar before submission, our Nature Methods pre-submission diagnostic flags the benchmarking gaps and biological-demonstration weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.