Science Advances 'With Editor': The Deputy-Editor Desk-Screen Stage Explained

Science Advances editors oversee the review process and are selected from an international pool of researchers with high levels of achievement and recognition in their fields; AAAS says they also have acknowledged breadth in recognizing and promoting interdisciplinary collaborations. The "With Editor" desk-screen phase is where that editorial board does its heaviest work.

A deputy editor reads the paper, may consult an associate editor, and decides whether the work warrants external review for the Science Advances multidisciplinary readership.

Because the editors are part-time academics (in the Physical and Materials Sciences group, deputy editors commonly handle 50 to 100 papers a month around their own research, per a 2022 editorial by a senior deputy editor), the desk screen can vary from paper to paper, although AAAS reports a median of 8 days to first decision.

Science Advances editorial culture is decisive at the desk screen: only 16.4% of 2025 submissions were externally reviewed, so most are rejected here without external review. During triage the deputy editor asks whether the general-science consequence is legible to an editor and reviewers who may not share the authors' narrow subfield. If the answer requires specialist knowledge to appreciate, the paper is already in trouble at the screen, which is why the cross-disciplinary advance must be stated in the first two sentences of the abstract rather than built up to.

The "With Editor" desk screen is where most rejections are made, before any referee is involved. The deputy editor evaluates whether the cross-disciplinary impact warrants a Science Advances slot and is legible to a non-specialist.

A desk rejection at this screen most often means the work is solid but reads to one subfield rather than to the AAAS multidisciplinary readership, or that the general-science consequence is not made clear enough for the editor to see it. None of this is a referee judgment; it is the deputy editor reading the abstract and first figure and asking why a scientist outside the home field should care.

Before the paper reaches a deputy editor for the screen, the submission is assigned to an editor group and a deputy editor (the form asks you to suggest a Deputy or Section Editor and an Associate Editor). Reporting-checklist requirements follow the Science journals' editorial policies: ARRIVE for animal research, a CONSORT checklist for randomized trials, and other relevant reporting standards for your field, which the policies encourage. Missing required items can stall a submission before the screen.

This is the core of the "With Editor" phase, even though, authors report, the portal still reads "Under Evaluation." The deputy editor reads the paper and screens for cross-disciplinary impact, general-science legibility, technical quality on first read, and clear presentation. If you are still Under Evaluation past 4 to 5 weeks without a rejection, that is a mildly positive signal you cleared the desk screen, because many desk rejections arrive earlier (the AAAS median first decision is 8 days).

If the desk screen passes, editors recruit a minimum of two reviewers. Recruitment can be slow for interdisciplinary papers, which may need experts from two or three fields, but AAAS does not publish how long it takes. Authors report that the portal status stays "Under Evaluation" throughout, so substantive editorial movement is invisible to you.

If the desk screen and recruitment pass, a minimum of two reviewers review the paper, and reviewers are asked to return evaluations within three weeks, although assigning editors may change that. AAAS reports a median of 58 days from submission to the first post-review decision. Authors report that the portal status stays "Under Evaluation" throughout, so even active review is invisible in the label. This is why elapsed time, not wording, is the only reliable read of where you are.

Because, authors report, Science Advances folds every substage into "Under Evaluation," you cannot see the desk screen end directly. The reliable proxy is elapsed time: a status that lasts only a few days to two weeks usually still means desk assessment (the AAAS median first decision is 8 days), while a status that passes 4 to 5 weeks 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 10 days: Fast desk rejection on cross-disciplinary scope or legibility (the median first decision is 8 days).

• Rejection within 2 to 4 weeks: Slower deputy-editor desk rejection.

• Still Under Evaluation at 4 to 8 weeks: Past the 4-to-5-week mark you have likely cleared the desk screen; reviewer recruitment or active review is most likely.

• Still Under Evaluation past about 10 weeks: A polite one-line inquiry to ScienceAdvancesEditorial@aaas.org is reasonable.

• Still Under Evaluation past 12 weeks: Something may be stuck (a reviewer dropped out); follow up.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Science Advances authors during the desk-screen window. The honest answer: no, 4 weeks without a rejection is a mildly positive signal that you may have cleared the desk screen, because many desk rejections arrive earlier and the AAAS median first decision is 8 days.

It is not proof, since the desk-reject distribution has a long tail (author-reported data shows some desk rejections past 50 days), but the odds the paper is in reviewer recruitment or active review improve past the 4-to-5-week mark. Delays from this point can come from cross-disciplinary reviewer recruitment timing, because the editor may need reviewers from two or three fields.

Do not email the editorial office during the first few weeks expecting a substage breakdown; an early inquiry rarely produces useful information and the portal will not tell you whether you are in the desk screen or in review. After about 10 weeks, a one-line status inquiry through the manuscript record is reasonable.

• Do not email the editorial office in the first few weeks unless you suspect a system error.

• Do not submit the paper anywhere else while it is Under Evaluation at Science Advances; AAAS prohibits dual submission.

• Confirm the cross-disciplinary advance is stated in the first two sentences of the abstract for a non-specialist deputy editor, because the desk screen asks why a reader outside the home field should care.

• Confirm every headline claim maps to a figure, control, sample description, statistical model, code repository, and reporting checklist (ARRIVE, CONSORT, or your field's standard), since one weak evidentiary bridge dominates review.

• Prepare an AAAS or external fallback plan (Nature Communications, PNAS, Science Signaling, Science Immunology, Science Robotics, or a field flagship) in case the deputy editor desk-rejects.

If your Science Advances paper is desk-rejected at the "With Editor" screen, the cascade depends on what the deputy editor cited:

AAAS sister journals (Science Signaling, Science Immunology, Science Robotics, Science Translational Medicine) are the natural cascade when the work fits a specialty AAAS editorial scope; AAAS editors may offer a transfer.

Nature Communications is the broad-scope Nature Portfolio cascade for interdisciplinary work where the open-access model fits. The Nature Communications Manuscript Tracking System at mts-ncomms.nature.com handles submission.

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

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

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

No reviewer has evaluated the work at this point; "With Editor" is a Deputy or Associate Editor desk screen against four criteria. The table maps each criterion to what you can confirm while you wait, even though the portal only ever shows "Under Evaluation."

Across Science Advances manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent desk-screen concerns and the most common reasons a paper is desk-rejected at the "With Editor" phase before any referee is invited. The authors who overread "Under Evaluation" are usually reacting to a real manuscript risk: they know the paper has a broad claim, but they are not sure the abstract, evidence package, and interdisciplinary framing are strong enough for the Science Advances desk screen.

Science Advances's public guidance explains the peer-review process; the Manusights layer is the manuscript-level pattern, what a waiting author can strengthen before the deputy editor decides.

Science Advances cross-disciplinary claim that is broad but not legible outside the home field.

In Science Advances manuscripts, the abstract sometimes names the system, organism, material, model, or dataset but never states what changes for a broader scientific reader. The science may be rigorous, yet the manuscript still reads to one subfield because the deputy editor cannot see the general-science consequence in the first two sentences.

During the desk-screen wait, check whether the title, abstract, and first figure build a three-part opening: the cross-field problem, the specific evidence that resolves a piece of it, and the reason readers outside the immediate field should care. If only a specialist can explain the importance, the screen package is fragile because the editor's first impression comes from the title, abstract and cover letter and the second from the figures and captions (per a 2022 editorial by a Science Advances senior deputy editor).

Check whether your Science Advances cross-disciplinary case is clear→

Science Advances evidence package with one weak link that can dominate review.

In Science Advances manuscripts, reviewers converge on the weakest evidentiary bridge: a missing control, an underpowered sample, an unclear statistical model, thin replication, incomplete code or data availability, or a figure sequence that overstates the result before the evidence is assembled. The problem is rarely that every component is weak. It is that one Methods or supplementary-data gap becomes the place where the paper no longer feels like a multidisciplinary advance.

While the paper is in the desk-screen phase, map every headline claim to the figure, table, control, sample description, code repository, and reporting checklist that supports it, so a single narrative-carried claim does not become the reviewer's focus.

Check if your Science Advances evidence package can survive review→

Science Advances AAAS routing plan that is reactive instead of deliberate. In Science Advances manuscripts, because the deputy editor can issue desk rejection, revision, reject-after-review, or transfer, authors need a routing plan before the decision arrives. We often see teams wait through the desk-screen phase and then lose 2 to 3 weeks deciding whether the paper belongs at Nature Communications, PNAS, Science Signaling, Science Immunology, Science Robotics, a field flagship, or a narrower specialist journal.

Before the screen ends, identify which claim belongs only at Science Advances, which figure would need to change for a fallback journal, and which reviewer objection would trigger a same-family AAAS transfer versus an external resubmission.

Check whether your AAAS routing plan is defensible→

This guide tells you what Science Advances deputy editors look for while the manuscript is in the desk-screen phase. The review tells you whether your paper passes that desk screen before the decision arrives. We have reviewed 50+ manuscripts targeting Science Advances, Science, Nature Communications, PNAS, eLife, and adjacent multidisciplinary journals; the named patterns above are the same ones deputy editors flag during the desk screen. 60-day money-back guarantee. Your manuscript is not used for model training, and access is limited to the review workflow.

This page helps Science Advances authors turn an opaque "Under Evaluation" label into a concrete desk-screen plan: read the timing rather than the wording, and check the cross-disciplinary advance, evidence-package integrity, and AAAS routing before the deputy editor finishes the screen.

Of the manuscripts our team reviewed for this Science Advances status-page pattern sample, the strongest desk-screen signal was whether the abstract and first figure made the cross-disciplinary consequence legible before the deputy editor had to reconstruct it from the technical result.

This page was created from:

• AAAS Science Advances information for authors at AAAS author instructions

• the Science Advances information for reviewers

• AAAS Editorial Policies (ARRIVE and CONSORT requirements and the encouragement of field reporting standards) and the information for reviewers page (minimum of two reviewers)

• SciRev community-reported transit data on Science Advances (average first review round 2.8 months and average decision time for an immediate rejection 32 days; 76 author reports, read October 2026)

• the AAAS journal-metrics page (2025 medians: 8 days to first decision, 58 days to the first post-review decision)

• a live review of public search results for "science advances with editor" queries in June 2026 (where the ranking results were generic cross-journal "with editor" explainers that do not note Science Advances uses no "With Editor" label)

• Manusights pre-submission review experience with Science Advances-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitation: AAAS publishes Science Advances author and reviewer information but does not document portal status names. Authors report that "Under Evaluation" is not a confirmed desk-pass or peer-review signal, and there is no public rule mapping a "With Editor" label to a Science Advances phase because, authors report, the journal does not use that label.

In practical author terms, the useful task during the desk-screen wait is to read the timing rather than the wording and to connect the desk screen to the cross-disciplinary advance, evidence-package integrity, and AAAS routing you can prepare before the deputy editor decides.

For the broad-scope landscape beyond Science Advances, see Nature Communications (broad interdisciplinary open-access), PNAS (NAS multidisciplinary, no APC for most), eLife (Reviewed Preprint), and AAAS specialty titles (Science Signaling, Science Immunology, Science Robotics, Science Translational Medicine).

Because the AAAS portal keeps the "With Editor" desk screen and the referee stage under the single "Under Evaluation" label, the Science Advances Under Evaluation guide covers the full label and covers how the status behaves across all phases, including after the desk screen.

Manuscripts are sorted editorially before any reviewer is assigned, and the "With Editor" desk screen is where that triage happens inside the Under Evaluation 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 Science Advances cross-disciplinary bar before the desk screen, our Science Advances pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and evidence-package weaknesses most likely to end a paper at the desk.