Nature Communications review time typically runs 4–8 weeks to first decision, with full acceptance often taking 3–6 months.
Submitting to a selective journal means living with suspense. You hit “send,” then the status page becomes a daily habit. This guide sets clear expectations for the Nature Communications review timeline, what each stage means, why delays happen, and practical steps that trim days from the clock. The goal: fewer surprises and a smoother path from submission to publication.
Nature Communications Review Timeline And Typical Milestones
The process follows a consistent arc: quick editorial screening, reviewer assignment, the first round of peer review, a decision letter, and—if invited—revision and re-review. Editors aim to move fast at the front end. Many manuscripts receive an early editorial call within the first two weeks. When a paper is sent out, reviewer deadlines are tight, and the journal sets clear windows for author revisions. The sections below unpack each stage and show where time tends to slip.
What Happens Before Peer Review
After you submit, editors assess scope, clarity, and advance. This check can lead to an immediate rejection, a transfer suggestion, or an invitation to external review. If a paper proceeds, editors line up two or three reviewers and request prompt reports. This is also where delays can start, since finding the right expertise is not always instant.
Broad Timeline Snapshot
Here’s a high-level view of common stages and ranges based on journal guidance and community reports. Your path might be shorter or longer, but these bands cover the bulk of outcomes.
| Stage | What It Covers | Typical Range |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Editorial Check | Desk assessment and send-out decision | 1–2 weeks (many within 8–10 days) |
| Reviewer Invitation Window | Securing 2–3 referees | 3–10 days |
| First Review Round | Referee reading and reporting | 3–6 weeks (typical) |
| First Decision | Editorial synthesis of reports | 4–8 weeks from send-out |
| Author Revision Window | Time granted to resubmit | Up to 2 months |
| Re-Review (If Needed) | Check that points were addressed | 2–4 weeks |
| Acceptance To Publication | Production, proofing, online posting | 2–4 weeks |
Early Editorial Pace: What The Numbers Say
Speed at the front end is a strong point for this title. The journal shares metrics that track days to the first editorial decision and other pace indicators. These numbers help set expectations for the first call on your manuscript. You can read the journal’s own journal metrics page and the step-by-step editorial process guide to see how decisions and deadlines are structured.
What “First Decision” Actually Means
That first decision is not necessarily acceptance or rejection after full peer review. In the metrics, it often refers to an editorial call on whether to send the manuscript for external review. If your work is sent out, the next actionable date is when reviewer reports land. Editors then weigh the reports and issue the first full decision—minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
How Long Peer Review Itself Takes
Most referees work to tight due dates. Many return reports inside a two-week window once they accept the assignment, though some take longer. Field strain, paper length, novelty, and method complexity affect this slice. If one referee is late or unavailable, editors may add a new reviewer, resetting the clock by a few days.
What Each Status In The Submission System Usually Means
Labels can be cryptic. Here’s plain-language meaning for the common ones, plus what to expect next.
Received / With Editor
Your files passed basic checks and reached an editor. This stage can move fast. If scope is not a match, a quick rejection or a transfer offer may follow. If fit looks strong, the paper moves toward external review.
Reviewers Invited / Reviewers Assigned
Editors are lining up reports. A pause here often reflects one declining reviewer or a busy season. After the last invitation is accepted, the clock rests with the referees.
Under Review / Reviews Complete
Your paper sits with referees. A “reviews complete” tag means reports are in. At that point, editors read the set, confer if needed, and prepare the decision letter.
Decision In Process / Decision Sent
Editors are writing the outcome. This can take a few days when reports conflict. Once the letter arrives, read it closely and plan your response. If revision is invited, you get a defined window.
Revisions Submitted / Re-Review
Once you resubmit, editors often send the file back to some or all referees. If changes are focused and the response is clear, the second round can be shorter than the first.
Accepted / In Production
After acceptance, the work moves to copyediting and proofing. Correct your proofs quickly. Fast proof return shortens the path to online publication.
Why Timelines Stretch Or Shrink
No two projects move the same way. These are the common drivers of speed and drag across the peer-review arc.
Scope And Fit
Papers that sit squarely in the journal’s remit leave the desk stage sooner. Clear framing helps the editor see where the study lands within the journal’s brief.
Reviewer Availability
Peak holiday weeks, field conferences, and grant deadlines can thin the reviewer pool. A single late report can add days. Good reviewer suggestions in your cover letter can help.
Manuscript Clarity
Crisp writing, transparent methods, and tidy figures reduce reviewer friction. Fewer confusions mean fewer back-and-forths during the decision write-up.
Revision Depth
Minor edits keep the train moving. Major new experiments add months. If the letter invites a full rework, create a plan, assign tasks, and set internal deadlines early.
Action Steps That Save Time
Small moves compound. Each item below trims minutes for editors and reviewers, which can bring the decision forward.
Shape A Targeted Cover Letter
- State the main advance in one crisp sentence.
- Flag the most relevant sections and figures.
- List conflict-free reviewer suggestions with e-mails and expertise tags.
Follow Formatting And Data Checks
- Number figures and tables cleanly; call them in order.
- Deposit data and code in stable repositories where applicable.
- Clear permissions for reused panels or photos before submission.
Make A Reviewer-Friendly PDF
- Use readable fonts and line spacing.
- Add scale bars and clear labels to figures.
- Keep legends complete so figures stand alone.
Plan Your Revision Week
- Set a team calendar the day the letter arrives.
- Assign each comment and track responses in a table.
- Draft the rebuttal as you run analyses to avoid last-minute stress.
Scenario-Based Timelines You Can Plan Around
These examples give planning anchors. They assume prompt responses from all sides and tidy files. Real paths vary by field and project size.
| Scenario | Likely Path | Expected Span |
|---|---|---|
| Desk Rejection | Initial check only | 3–14 days |
| Sent Out, Rejected | One full round, decision letter | 4–10 weeks |
| Minor Revision → Accept | First round, light edits, quick re-review | 6–12 weeks + 1–3 weeks production |
| Major Revision → Accept | First round, deep edits, second round | 3–6 months + 1–4 weeks production |
| Transfer After Rejection | New journal, sometimes shared reports | 1–3 months to a new decision |
How To Read And Respond To The Decision Letter
When the decision arrives, skim once for tone, then read again with a pen. Split the letter into action items and clarifications. Start the response file immediately and paste each reviewer point as a bold prompt, followed by your reply in plain text. Where you disagree, keep the tone calm and point to data. If a point is out of scope, offer a short rationale and, when helpful, a brief analysis in the supplement to close the loop.
Writing The Rebuttal So It Moves Fast
- Mirror the order of comments so editors can match replies quickly.
- Show line numbers and figure labels when you cite changes.
- Use short paragraphs that map 1:1 to each reviewer point.
When You Need Extra Time
If the letter grants two months and your experiments need a wider window, ask early. A short, direct note with a clear reason and a new target date is better than radio silence. Editors prefer a planned extension over a late resubmission.
Field Differences And Seasonal Swings
Some areas run hot on submissions after big conferences or grant calls. Reviewer bandwidth dips in late December and during summer breaks in many regions. If you submit during a peak week, the invitation stage can stretch. That said, strong fit and tidy files still move faster than average, even in busy seasons.
Production After Acceptance: What Speeds The Last Mile
Copyediting and proofs are the last steps before your paper goes live. Reply to queries fast and return proofs within a day or two. Keep figure source files handy so you can fix a label or unit mark without delay. Clear funding and data availability notes also prevent back-and-forth late in production.
Practical Checklist To Keep Beside Your Keyboard
- Scope match: title, abstract, and figures point to the same core claim.
- Cover letter: one-line advance, reviewer list, conflict checks done.
- Data: links live; access notes complete; identifiers in place.
- Figures: legible fonts; clear scale bars; color-blind-safe palettes.
- Methods: sample sizes, statistics, and software versions declared.
- Response plan: template ready for when the decision letter lands.
What To Expect Overall
Plan for two bookends. If your study is not sent to external review, you may hear back inside the first couple of weeks. If it is sent out and revision is invited, a full path from submission to publication often sits in the 3–6 month band, with shorter arcs for tidy minor-revision cases and longer ones for deep rework. Treat these as planning guides, not promises, and give yourself buffer time around grant or job deadlines.
Method Notes
This guide draws on the journal’s publicly stated timelines for editorial checks, reviewer report windows, and revision deadlines, paired with broad ranges observed across fields. The two linked pages above set the official structure and timing cues. Community reports add color across disciplines, but they vary by field and project size.