Scientific Reports 'With Editor': What the Editorial Screen Means

Evidence basis: This is a source-backed editorial synthesis checked against the official editorial process, submission guidelines and Nature Support explanation on October 8, 2026. The worksheet and fictional example are original explanatory artifacts, not observations from customer manuscripts.

Scientific Reports evaluates research robustness and validity, including methods, analysis, statistics and ethics. Its editorial-process description distinguishes these stages. They are documented workflow steps, not guaranteed portal wording or separate service deadlines.

The general Nature Support process explanation also separates quality checks, assignment, review and decision. The journal-specific page is the source for Scientific Reports' reviewer-number description and first-decision aim.

The journal does not publish a recruitment timetable on that process page. Choosing reviewers and receiving their agreement are different events; neither the two-or-three-reviewer description nor the overall first-decision aim establishes the invitation history of your paper.

An initial "With Editor" entry is consistent with editorial evaluation, but cannot expose the contents of a private record. After revision or review, an editor may also need to evaluate a manuscript. Read earlier events before applying a first-submission explanation to a later round.

The official process says the journal aims to make a first decision within 45 days of submission. That overall aim is not a measured median, guarantee, acceptance probability or promise that reviewer reports will arrive on a particular day.

The inspected page does not publish a separate "With Editor" duration. It cannot substantiate a normal 7-to-14-day screen, fixed editor-matching days, or a rule that three weeks is always normal. A long wait can justify seeking an update; it does not establish likely rejection.

Count time since submission when comparing with the first-decision aim. Count time since the last event when explaining the unchanged label. For a revision, use the revision instructions and correspondence rather than assuming the first-submission aim automatically restarts.

The Scientific Reports Under Review explanation covers review-stage questions. Do not turn reviewer-stage timing into a measured duration for this editorial label.

This is a Manusights editorial worksheet, not a publisher form or a dataset of observed waiting times. Copy the fields into a private note to separate what your record shows from what you are guessing.

If the request field is empty, do not invent a missing-document problem. If the history lists an invitation, do not record "review in progress" unless it establishes that distinction. A useful note preserves uncertainty.

"My paper has been With Editor for two weeks. Is that bad?"

Consider a fictional original submission made August 29, with "With Editor" first shown August 31. On September 12, the author has received no document request or promised update date. The record shows 14 days since submission and 12 days with the label. It does not show a rejection decision, editor workload or stalled reviewer invitation.

The author checks for missed correspondence and keeps both dates in the worksheet. The published first-decision aim has not yet elapsed. Waiting can be reasonable when no action is due; an urgent correction or requested response should still be sent promptly. This is a decision example, not an estimate of what the journal usually does on day 14.

Now change one fact: the office promised an update on September 8. A brief follow-up can refer to that missed date. The reason is the manuscript-specific commitment, rather than an unsupported rule that every two-week wait is abnormal.

Use this table with the worksheet. These are practical author recommendations. The official editorial process does not prescribe a four-week ban on inquiries.

A concise status inquiry

Subject: Status inquiry for manuscript [ID]

Dear Scientific Reports Editorial Office,

I am the corresponding author of manuscript [ID], submitted on [date]. The record has shown [exact label] since [date]. Could you let me know whether any action is required from us and whether an update on progress is available?

Thank you, [corresponding author's signature]

Use only facts from your record. Add a sentence about a promised update only if the office supplied a date. If you already asked, reply in the same thread and follow the response instead of messaging multiple editors. Check the contact link in the official author resources when the acknowledgement does not resolve routing.

At Scientific Reports, the handling editor described in the official process is an Editorial Board Member who is an active researcher in the field. That editor evaluates suitability for peer review, chooses reviewers and makes the decision after considering the reports. The process emphasizes methodological, analytical, statistical and ethical robustness. This gives you a concrete preparation task: make the evidence behind the main claim easy to locate and its limitations clear. It does not give you an editor's workload, reading time or likely verdict. Preparing clear evidence is useful; assigning a cause to a delay from the editor's role alone is speculation.

The submission guidelines require a Data Availability Statement and link to the materials-and-data policy. Do not assume every dataset can be posted publicly or that a generic access phrase satisfies every requirement. Check the policy for the data type and describe restrictions and access arrangements accurately.

A methods and protocol check can help locate unclear reasoning before a later revision. A data-package readiness check can help organize figure-to-evidence questions. Neither confirms what an editor is currently doing.

Read the actual decision before choosing appeal, revision or another journal. The Scientific Reports process describes an appeal after peer review when strong evidence indicates scientific misunderstanding or reviewer bias. It does not promise routine appeals after initial screening or automatic transfer to a particular Communications journal.

Use the letter to distinguish a scope mismatch from a scientific weakness. A new journal cannot fix an unsupported conclusion or missing analysis. Evaluate a transfer invitation on its own terms; journal names alone do not establish an easier or more suitable route.

The PLOS ONE status guide and International Journal of Molecular Sciences status guide help interpret their workflows if you later submit there. They are not an acceptance ladder. See Nature Communications Under Consideration for a different Nature Portfolio workflow.

A journal-choice diagnostic can help examine fit. Confirm the destination's current scope before acting. An external diagnostic is not an editorial recommendation or permission for simultaneous submission.

This revision removes unsupported stage durations, screening rejection percentages, editor workload estimates, automatic Communications-journal cascade claims and an untraceable private-review attribution. The previous description's rejection percentage and excerpt's certainty about reviewer invitations were part of the same factual defect. No replacement acceptance rate or private dataset has been invented.

Two limitations matter: the public sources do not expose an individual editor assignment, and community accounts cannot establish a representative stage duration. This guide cannot predict an editorial decision. Community posts can identify author questions, but cannot validate private facts. The useful output is a documented next action with unresolved details identified.