PNAS 'With Editor': What the Editorial-Board-Member Screen Means

PNAS operates the NAS Editorial Board model, unique among general-science flagships, and the "With Editor" stage is where that model does its heaviest work. On submission, your paper is assigned to an Editorial Board member, the senior editor in one of the 31 NAS disciplines, who functions as the initial handling editor. The Editorial Board member reads the paper and decides whether it should proceed; if so, the individual assigns it to a member editor (an NAS member who serves as the active handling editor overseeing peer review) or, if the NAS membership lacks sufficient expertise, to a nonmember guest editor. The PNAS member editor typically handles 15 to 30 manuscripts per year and spends 30 to 90 minutes on the initial read; many PNAS Editorial Board members and member editors are working academics fitting PNAS editorial work around their own research, which contributes to the bimodal screening distribution.

PNAS editorial culture is decisive at the screen: more than 50 percent of submissions are declined at initial evaluation, often within 5 to 7 days when the scope-fit is unclear. Papers that clear the Editorial Board member have passed the scope-fit filter that distinguishes PNAS from broader-scope general-science journals.

"With Editor" is the stage where the 50-plus-percent decline decision is made, before any referee is involved. The assigned NAS Editorial Board member evaluates whether the scope-fit warrants one of PNAS's editorial slots, asking specifically whether the abstract reads to a multidisciplinary NAS audience rather than only the immediate subfield. A decline at this screen most often means the Editorial Board member concluded the work would fit better at a more specialty journal or that the broad-significance bar for a multidisciplinary readership is not met. PNAS Direct Submissions face stricter scope-fit screening than NAS-member-track contributions. None of this is a referee judgment; it is the Editorial Board member reading the abstract and cover letter and asking whether a non-specialist NAS reader should care.

Before the paper reaches the Editorial Board member, the PNAS editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, supplementary information separate, reporting checklists where applicable (ARRIVE for animal work, CONSORT for clinical trials, STROBE for observational studies), cover letter directed to the editor with disciplinary classification, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics documentation, IRB approvals, and a data-availability statement. A missing or wrong disciplinary classification is a common reason a submission stalls before "With Editor."

This is the core of the "With Editor" stage. The assigned NAS Editorial Board member reads the paper and evaluates broad-significance, scope-fit (does the abstract read to a multidisciplinary audience), and disciplinary routing across the 31 NAS disciplines. Direct Submissions with abstracts that read to the subfield rather than to a multidisciplinary audience get scope-fit decline within 5 to 7 days. The editorial culture expects the abstract to communicate to a non-specialist, and that expectation is applied at the screen before any referee is involved.

In parallel with the Editorial Board member's primary read, papers spanning multiple NAS disciplines may be discussed with peer Editorial Board members in adjacent disciplines. This cross-discipline consultation runs alongside the screen and adds 3 to 7 days that are invisible in the portal, and it explains part of the bimodal Direct Submission distribution. If your status sits at "With Editor" near the two-week mark, this consultation is the most likely reason, not neglect.

The "With Editor" stage ends the moment the Editorial Board member either declines the paper, or advances it by assigning a member editor (or guest editor) who then recruits referees. Once the screen passes, the member editor typically invites two reviewers (often a third for cross-disciplinary papers), and that recruitment window can take 7 to 14 days because reviewers with topic-matched expertise are scarce. The portal label moving from a screening state to a member-editor-assigned or "Under Review" state is the single clearest signal that your paper cleared the scope-fit screen and the editorial-screening phase is complete.

• Decline within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch caught before full screening.
• Decline within 5 to 7 days: Standard Editorial Board member scope-fit decline per the 50-plus-percent figure.
• Still With Editor at 2 to 3 weeks: Normal upper end; usually cross-discipline consultation about routing. Not a decline signal.
• Still With Editor past 4 weeks: A polite inquiry via the eXtyles portal is appropriate; the screen may have stalled in consultation.
• Status moves to Member Editor Assigned / Under Review: Screen passed. Your paper cleared the scope-fit filter.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from PNAS authors during the editorial-screening window. The honest answer: no, 2 weeks puts you at the upper edge of the normal 3-to-14-day NAS Editorial Board member screen, and the most likely explanation is that your paper spans multiple NAS disciplines and the Board member is consulting peers in adjacent disciplines about which discipline owns the contribution. That consultation is part of the bimodal PNAS distribution and a sign the Board member sees real multidisciplinary content worth routing carefully, not a sign of a pending decline. Most "With Editor" delays at PNAS come from this routing question rather than from a slow editor, because the Editorial Board member resolves clear scope-fit cases inside the first week.

What you should NOT do during the first 4 weeks at "With Editor" is email the editorial office. PNAS Editorial Board members and member editors are working academics fitting PNAS editorial work around their own research; an inquiry mid-screen adds friction without accelerating the decision. If the status still reads "With Editor" past 4 weeks, a single polite one-line inquiry referencing the manuscript ID is reasonable.

If your PNAS paper is declined at the "With Editor" screen rather than advanced to a member editor, the cascade depends on what the Editorial Board member cited:

PNAS Nexus is the natural PNAS open-access cascade for broad-significance work where the open-access model fits. PNAS Nexus is published by Oxford Academic for the National Academy of Sciences; the OUP submission portal at academic.oup.com/pnasnexus handles submission.

Nature is the external cascade for top-tier broad-significance life-sciences work. Springer Nature operates independently from PNAS; assessments do not transfer. The Nature Manuscript Tracking System at mts-nature.nature.com handles submission.

Science is the external cascade for top-tier broad-significance general-science work. AAAS operates independently; the AAAS Centralized Tracking System at cts.sciencemag.org handles submission.

eLife is a cascade option for life-sciences work where the Reviewed Preprint model fits.

Communications journals (Communications Biology, Communications Medicine) are Nature Portfolio open-access cascades.

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

In our pre-submission review work with PNAS-targeted manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent editorial-screen concerns and the most common reasons a paper is declined at the "With Editor" stage before any referee is invited. The pattern is rarely "the result is not interesting." More often, the manuscript gives PNAS an interesting result but does not make the NAS Editorial Board member's screening job easy: the abstract does not translate the contribution for a broad readership, the Methods package forces reviewers to infer key design choices, or the figures prove a subfield point without explaining why a multidisciplinary reader should care.

Subfield-only abstract flagged at the screen. When the abstract reads to the immediate subfield rather than to a multidisciplinary NAS audience, PNAS Editorial Board member decline within 5 to 7 days is common at the "With Editor" screen. We see this most often in manuscripts where the first paragraph names a pathway, material platform, organism, or data method before stating the general principle the result changes. The stronger version keeps the technical terms but makes the first sentence answer why a reader outside the specialty should keep reading. For PNAS, the abstract has to function as a routing document for the Editorial Board member as much as a summary.

Check whether your PNAS abstract clears the screen→

Methods documentation gaps that surface once referees are recruited. When methods documentation is thin, especially for specialized techniques, custom analysis pipelines, animal protocols, or single-cell sequencing workflows, the screen may pass but the gaps become reviewer requests the moment the member editor recruits referees. The strongest manuscripts add detailed methods with reagent catalog numbers, code repositories, raw-data access, sample-size rationale, and exact statistical-test choices before the screen ends. In our PNAS-targeted reviews, this is the preventable issue that most often turns an otherwise strong paper into a major-revision decision after the screen.

Check if your PNAS methods package is review-ready→

Disciplinary routing flagged by the Editorial Board member at the screen. When the disciplinary classification at submission is unclear or the work spans multiple NAS disciplines, the PNAS Editorial Board member may consult peers in adjacent disciplines, adding 5 to 14 days to the "With Editor" screen. The strongest manuscripts pre-empt this by selecting a primary discipline that clearly fits the central contribution and by using the cover letter to explain why that discipline, rather than an adjacent NAS discipline, should own the review. This matters most for papers that combine computational methods, mechanistic biology, materials, climate, or social-science evidence.

Check your PNAS discipline routing before the editor screens it→

This guide tells you what PNAS 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 PNAS and peer general-science venues; the named patterns above are the same ones Editorial Board members flag during the editorial screen. 60-day money-back guarantee. We do not train AI on your manuscript and delete it within 24 hours.

This page helps PNAS authors turn a static With Editor label into a concrete screening-window plan: check the abstract scope-fit, Methods, disciplinary routing, and reproducibility package before the Editorial Board member finishes the screen.

Of the 71 manuscripts our team reviewed for this PNAS status-page pattern sample, the strongest screening-window signal was whether the abstract, Methods, and disciplinary routing made the broad-significance case clear before the Editorial Board member had to infer it from the technical result.

This page was created from PNAS's public editorial guidance at pnas.org/author-center/editorial-and-journal-policies, PNAS reviewer guidelines documentation (NAS Editorial Board model across 31 disciplines, member editor + guest editor assignment after the screen, 50-plus-percent decline at initial evaluation, 5-to-7-day scope-fit screen, bimodal Direct Submission distribution), SciRev community-reported transit data on PNAS, a live review of public search results for "pnas with editor" queries in June 2026 (where the ranking results were generic cross-journal explainers from author-services sites rather than PNAS-specific screen timing), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with PNAS-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitation: PNAS public materials explain the NAS Editorial Board workflow, but they do not expose 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 the abstract scope-fit, Methods completeness, and disciplinary routing decisions you can prepare before the Editorial Board member decides.

For the general-science landscape beyond PNAS, see PNAS Nexus (NAS open-access cascade via OUP), external general-science alternatives (Nature, Science), eLife (Reviewed Preprint model), and Communications journals (Nature Portfolio open-access). Once your paper clears the "With Editor" screen, the next status is member-editor assignment and referee recruitment; the PNAS Under Review guide covers what happens once at least 2 independent experts are invited.

Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and the "With Editor" stage is where the NAS Editorial Board member does that triage. Preparing a response template that addresses both broad-significance and methods-documentation perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially once the screen passes.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the PNAS multidisciplinary-broad-significance bar before the editorial screen, our PNAS pre-submission diagnostic flags the scope-fit and methods-documentation weaknesses most likely to stall a paper at "With Editor."