Nature Neuroscience 'With Editor': What the Handling-Editor Screen Means

Nature Neuroscience operates the full-time professional editor model, and the "With Editor" stage is where that model does its heaviest work. A Nature Neuroscience handling editor is not a working academic fitting journal work around a lab; the handling editor is a full-time professional who transitioned from research to editorial work. Nature's editorial team explicitly states that "to save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet editorial criteria are sent for formal review, while papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review." A handling editor at Nature Neuroscience typically reviews 30 to 50 manuscripts per quarter and spends 30 to 90 minutes on the initial screening read, evaluating broad-neuroscience significance, advance over the existing literature, and Nature Portfolio routing before deciding whether any referee is invited.

Nature Neuroscience editorial culture is decisive at the screen: roughly 80 to 85 percent of submissions are rejected here, and the 9-day median first decision means most rejections land at the handling-editor read inside the first 1 to 2 weeks. Papers that clear the handling editor have passed the steepest filter at Nature Portfolio's flagship neuroscience title, and the decision then shifts from "is this broad enough for neuroscience" to "is the science correct."

"With Editor" is the stage where the 80-to-85-percent desk-reject decision is made, before any referee is involved. The handling editor evaluates whether the neuroscience advance warrants Nature Neuroscience's selective editorial slots. A desk rejection at this screen most often means the editor concluded the work would fit better at a sister Nature Portfolio title (Nature Communications for broader scope, Communications Biology for technically sound work with narrower audience appeal) or that the broad-neuroscience significance bar is not met. None of this is a referee judgment; it is the editor reading the abstract, introduction, and first figure and asking whether the result changes a neuroscience principle for readers beyond the immediate subfield.

Before the paper reaches the handling editor, the Nature Portfolio editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, supplementary information separate, reporting checklists where applicable (ARRIVE for animal work including rodent behavior or rodent electrophysiology, MIQE for quantitative PCR), cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics documentation including IACUC approval for vertebrate animal work, and a data-availability statement. Missing required items are the most common reason a submission never reaches "With Editor."

This is the core of the "With Editor" stage. The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates broad-neuroscience significance, advance over the existing literature, and methodological rigor. Clear cases resolve fast given the 9-day median: an obvious scope mismatch is returned within days, and an obvious broad-neuroscience advance moves to reviewer assignment. Complex cases, where the science is strong but the breadth is ambiguous, stretch the screen toward 2 to 3 weeks.

In parallel with the handling editor's screening read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed at the Nature Neuroscience editor meeting, where peer handling editors at sister Nature Portfolio titles weigh whether the paper fits Nature Neuroscience, Nature Communications, or Communications Biology. This discussion runs alongside the screen and adds 3 to 5 days that are invisible in the portal. If your status sits at "With Editor" near the two-to-three-week mark, this internal discussion is the most likely reason, not neglect.

The "With Editor" stage ends the moment the handling editor either returns the paper (desk reject), recommends a Nature Portfolio transfer, or moves it to reviewer assignment. The portal label changing from "With Editor" to a reviewer-assignment or "Under Review" state is the single clearest signal that your paper cleared the desk screen and the editorial-screening phase is complete.

• Return within 1 to 3 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch caught before full screening.
• Return within 3 to 14 days: Standard handling-editor desk rejection per the 80-to-85-percent figure and 9-day median. Most rejections happen here.
• Still With Editor at 2 to 3 weeks: Normal complex-case range; usually internal editor discussion about Nature Portfolio routing. Not a reject signal.
• Still With Editor past 4 to 6 weeks: A polite inquiry via the submission portal is appropriate; the screen may have stalled in discussion.
• Status moves to Reviewers Assigned / Under Review: Screen passed. Your paper cleared the steepest filter at Nature Portfolio's neuroscience flagship.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Nature Neuroscience authors during the editorial-screening window. The honest answer: no, 2 weeks puts you just past the 9-day median and inside the normal complex-case distribution. The most likely explanation is that the handling editor triggered internal editor discussion about whether the broad-neuroscience advance fits Nature Neuroscience or a sister Nature Portfolio title. That discussion is a sign the editor sees real significance worth routing carefully, not a sign of a pending desk reject. Most "With Editor" delays at Nature Neuroscience come from this breadth-and-routing question rather than from a slow editor, because the professional-editor model resolves the screen quickly once the breadth question is settled.

What you should NOT do during the first 8 weeks at "With Editor" is email the editorial office. Nature Neuroscience handling editors manage 40+ active papers; an inquiry mid-screen adds friction without accelerating the decision. If the status still reads "With Editor" past 4 to 6 weeks, a single polite one-line inquiry referencing the manuscript ID is reasonable.

If your Nature Neuroscience paper is returned at the "With Editor" screen rather than sent to referees, the cascade depends on what the handling editor cited:

Nature Communications is the most natural Nature Portfolio cascade because Nature Portfolio supports manuscript transfer with any reviewer reports preserved; at the screen stage, transfer happens before reports exist, but the editorial assessment travels. Nature Communications has a broader, multidisciplinary scope than Nature Neuroscience.

Communications Biology is the Nature Portfolio open-access cascade for technically rigorous neuroscience work where the broad-neuroscience audience appeal is narrower than Nature Neuroscience's bar.

Neuron is a Cell Press cascade for mechanism-focused neuroscience papers where the Cell Press consulting-editor model is preferred. Cell Press operates independently from Nature Portfolio; assessments do not transfer.

eLife is a cascade for neuroscience work where the Reviewed Preprint model and public reviewer reports fit.

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 Neuroscience manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent editorial-screen concerns and the most common reasons a paper is returned at the "With Editor" stage before any referee is invited. The practical question during the screen is whether the abstract, introduction, main figures, Methods, ARRIVE documentation, Data Availability Statement, and supplement already make the broad-neuroscience advance auditable. Nature Neuroscience's public guidance explains the process; the Manusights layer is the manuscript-level pattern, what a waiting author can strengthen before the handling editor decides.

Nature Neuroscience narrow conceptual framing in the abstract and first figure. In Nature Neuroscience manuscripts, the title, abstract, and first figure sometimes prove a strong result in one circuit, organism, assay, or disease subdomain but do not show why the result changes a broader neuroscience principle. The Methods and figures may be rigorous, yet the manuscript still reads like a specialty systems- or cellular-neuroscience paper because the screen does not see the broad-neuroscience advance. During the "With Editor" wait, check whether the title, abstract, first figure, and final introduction paragraph all point to the same broad-neuroscience claim. If only the cover letter makes the breadth argument, the screen package is fragile because the cover letter is not what the handling editor weighs most heavily.

Check whether your Nature Neuroscience abstract clears the screen→

Nature Neuroscience methods and ARRIVE gaps that surface the moment referees are assigned. In Nature Neuroscience manuscripts, AAV-construct detail, viral titers, surgery coordinates, calcium-imaging processing, electrophysiology protocols, behavioral-paradigm parameters, exclusion criteria, blinding and randomization statements, ARRIVE compliance, and analysis-code availability often become referee requests even when the editor likes the question at the screen. The weak point is rarely an ignored checklist name. It is that the Methods and supplement do not let a technical referee verify the central claim quickly. If the manuscript is With Editor, use the wait to prepare exact manuscript-location answers for these components so the paper is ready the moment the screen passes.

Check whether your Nature Neuroscience methods package is review-ready→

Nature Portfolio transfer logic that ends the screen in a redirect. In Nature Neuroscience manuscripts, a rigorous paper may receive a transfer recommendation to Nature Communications or Communications Biology if the handling editor concludes at the screen that the result is strong but the broad-neuroscience audience appeal is uncertain. Authors lose time when they treat that as failure instead of mapping the likely route. Before the screen ends, identify which figure, method, dataset, mechanism, or model-system constraint would make a sister Nature Portfolio title cleaner, and build a transfer-ready response file that preserves momentum. That map helps if the screen ends in reject-with-transfer rather than referee assignment.

Check whether your Nature Neuroscience transfer plan is screen-ready→

This guide tells you what Nature Neuroscience editors look for while the manuscript is being screened. The review tells you whether YOUR paper passes that screen before the decision arrives. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting Nature Neuroscience and peer neuroscience venues; the named patterns above are the same ones handling editors flag during 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 Neuroscience authors turn a static With Editor label into a concrete screening-window plan: check the broad-neuroscience advance, ARRIVE documentation, source data, Methods, figure logic, supplement, and likely Nature Portfolio fallback before the handling editor finishes the screen.

Of the 105 manuscripts our team reviewed for this Nature Neuroscience status-page pattern sample, the strongest screening-window signal was whether the abstract, first figure, and Methods made broad-neuroscience significance and technical reproducibility visible before the handling editor had to reconstruct the claim from the supplementary files.

This page was created from Nature Neuroscience's public editorial-process guidance at nature.com/neuro/submission-guidelines/editorial-process, the Nature Neuroscience peer-review policy, Nature Neuroscience Review Speed Feedback System data (16.1-day author-reported average, 9-day median first decision), Nature Portfolio editorial documentation (professional-editor model, "rejected promptly without external review" triage, transfer-to-Nature-Portfolio at decision), SciRev community-reported transit data on Nature Neuroscience, a live review of public search results for "nature neuroscience with editor" queries in June 2026 (where the ranking results were generic cross-journal explainers from author-services sites rather than Nature Neuroscience-specific desk-screen timing), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Nature Neuroscience-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitation: public Nature guidance can confirm the Manuscript Tracking System route, the editor-led triage, the desk-screen criteria, and broad timing expectations, but it cannot reveal the private screening state inside a specific manuscript record. In practical author terms, the useful task during the "With Editor" wait is to connect the screen to broad-neuroscience framing, ARRIVE and Methods completeness, source data, and Nature Portfolio transfer planning.

For the Nature Portfolio neuroscience landscape beyond Nature Neuroscience, see Nature Communications (broader multidisciplinary scope, transfer-friendly), Communications Biology (Nature Portfolio open-access), Nature Reviews Neuroscience (review-article focus), and Cell Press titles (Neuron, Cell Reports). Once your paper clears the "With Editor" screen, the next status is reviewer assignment; the Nature Neuroscience Under Review guide covers what happens once 2 to 3 reviewers are invited.

Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and the "With Editor" stage is where that triage happens. Preparing a response template that addresses both broad-neuroscience significance and methodological-rigor perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially once the screen passes, given the 4-to-12-week first-round distribution that follows.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Nature Neuroscience broad-advance bar before the editorial screen, our Nature Neuroscience pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and methods-documentation weaknesses most likely to stall a paper at "With Editor."