Nature journal review often spans 1–3 months per round, with first decisions ranging from about 10 to 45 days depending on the title.
Submitting to a Nature-branded title brings careful editorial screening and external evaluation. The timeline isn’t one-size-fits-all, but patterns do emerge across the portfolio. Below you’ll find clear ranges, concrete examples from individual journals, and practical ways to keep your manuscript moving.
Nature Journal Review Timeframes: What To Expect
Across the portfolio, two clocks matter: time to the first editorial decision and time spent in formal peer review. Some journals publish their speed metrics. One flagship open-access title lists a median of roughly 10 days to a first decision, reflecting a quick yes/no on sending a paper out to referees. A high-volume sister journal targets up to 45 days for that same first decision. When your study proceeds to external review, expect 3–6 weeks for reports in a typical round, followed by an editor’s decision and, often, a revision cycle.
How The Process Breaks Down
Editors screen for scope, presentation, and advance. If the fit is promising, they invite two to three referees and gather reports. The editor then weighs the advice and decides among rejection, revision, or acceptance. Some titles also publish peer-review files for accepted papers, which adds transparency and gives authors a sense of typical depth and tone of feedback.
Speed At A Glance By Journal
Here’s a compact look at stated first-decision timings across several Nature-branded titles. These figures help frame expectations before you submit.
| Journal | First Decision Timing | Source / Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Nature Communications | Median ~10 days (editorial decision) | Commitment to authors — explains median first decisions |
| Scientific Reports | Aim: within 45 days (first decision) | Editorial process — sets 45-day target |
| Nature (flagship) | Varies by manuscript; transparent review available for accepted papers | Editorial criteria & processes |
| Nature Methods | Standard editorial stages; timing depends on securing referees | Editorial process & peer review |
What Drives The Timeline Up Or Down
Several factors push a decision date forward or back. You can’t control all of them, but you can shape a smoother path.
Reviewer Availability And Fit
Editors usually invite two or three specialists for a standard research article. Niche topics or complex methods can make it trickier to find the right mix, which lengthens the waiting period. Precise titles, clear abstracts, and well-marked methods sections help editors match your study with suitable referees.
Manuscript Clarity And Completeness
Clean figures, labeled source data, and a tight narrative reduce back-and-forth at the screening stage. Missing controls, unclear statistics, and incomplete data sharing slow the editorial pass and can trigger extra queries before review even begins.
Competing Interest Checks
Referees are asked to decline if a conflict exists, which is standard for the portfolio. When invited reviewers step aside, editors restart invitations and the clock continues to run. Clear statements from authors about previous collaborations and shared resources make this smoother.
Journal Scope And Selectivity
Some titles receive large volumes and apply sharper triage. A rapid first decision there usually means a quick decline or an expedited send-out to referees. In contrast, community journals with editorial boards of active researchers may require more time to coordinate assignments but can still move briskly once the right reviewers accept.
From Submission To Decision: A Practical Timeline
Think of the path as a series of predictable steps. While individual experiences vary, these ranges reflect common patterns across the portfolio.
Initial Screening
New submissions go through checks for format and policy compliance. After that, an editor assesses scope, advance, and readability. Where published, median times to this first decision range from about 10 days at one major open-access title to a stated target of 45 days at a large general journal.
Peer Review Round
Once sent to referees, expect 3–6 weeks for reports in a standard round. Complex multi-omic or longitudinal studies sometimes require an extra week or two. Editors synthesize the feedback and issue one of three paths: reject, revise, or accept. Revise is common; many papers reach acceptance after one or two rounds.
Revision Windows
Authors receive timelines for minor or major revisions. Minor updates often get one to three weeks. Major work can receive six to eight weeks or more. Clear, point-by-point responses and labeled changes speed re-evaluation and limit requests for fresh experiments.
What Editors Say About Process And Policy
The portfolio sets out how many reviewers are commonly used, what decisions look like, and how transparency works. The peer review policy describes standard two to three reviewers for full articles and spells out decision categories. Many journals in the family publish a peer-review file for accepted work, reinforcing clear expectations on the style and depth of feedback.
Planning Your Submission Window
When your project has competing deadlines—grant cycles, job market timing, or policy briefings—you’ll want a schedule you can count on. Lean on journals that publish speed metrics and align your plan with those medians or targets.
Typical Ranges Authors Report
Experiences vary. Large community venues list a target of up to 45 days for the first editorial decision. High-selectivity journals can make very quick triage calls, sometimes within days, while complex revisions add weeks. The steady pattern across the family is a fast initial screen, followed by a peer-review round lasting about a month, then a revision cycle of similar length.
Data Sharing And Methods Transparency
Posting source data and code, when applicable, can accelerate referee confidence and cut clarification loops. Clear statistics—effect sizes, exact p-values where appropriate, and defined correction methods—reduce calls for extra analyses late in review.
How To Keep Your Paper Moving
Small choices compound into weeks saved. These steps help editors and referees act without delay.
Sharpen The Abstract And Cover Letter
Spell out the main finding in two lines. Flag any registered analyses or preregistered protocols. If your study builds on a preprint with substantial new data, say so plainly and list what’s new.
Suggest Balanced Referees
Provide a short list spanning methods and domain expertise. Include researchers from different institutions and regions where possible. Avoid close collaborators and recent co-authors. Well-targeted suggestions speed assignments without compromising independence.
Anticipate Common Questions
Preempt likely requests with supplementary controls, power calculations, and robustness checks. Clear data availability and ethics statements prevent administrative holds.
Respond With A Tight Revision Package
Use a point-by-point document mirroring the referee numbering. Quote each point briefly, state your action, and point to exact figure panels or line numbers. Where you disagree, keep it calm and evidence-based. That tone encourages decisive editor calls.
Stage-By-Stage Timing Guide
This table converts portfolio guidance and posted targets into a practical schedule you can plan around. Treat it as a living template to map your own project timeline.
| Stage | Typical Duration | What Helps |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial Screening | ~10–45 days to first decision (journal-dependent) | Clear scope; polished figures; brief cover letter |
| External Review | ~3–6 weeks for reports in a round | Accessible methods; shared data; reviewer fit |
| Editor Decision | ~3–10 days after reports | Concise study aim; balanced referee set |
| Minor Revision | 1–3 weeks (typical window) | Point-by-point with exact locations of changes |
| Major Revision | ~6–8+ weeks | Pre-planned experiments; transparent limits |
| Final Checks | ~1–2 weeks to acceptance after approval | Ethics, data, and permissions in place |
Transparency And Published Review Files
Several titles in the family publish reviewer comments and author rebuttals alongside accepted research. That practice gives clear insight into the kind of questions raised, the tone of exchanges, and the depth of revisions that lead to acceptance. If your study is transferred within the portfolio, the receiving journal may publish only the peer-review file corresponding to its own evaluation of the final accepted version.
Where To Check Policy And Metrics
Before you submit, scan two pages: the journal’s speed metrics page and its policy page on referee practice. The journal metrics overview explains how “submission to first editorial decision” and “submission to acceptance” are defined. The dedicated peer review policy page sets reviewer numbers and decision types across the portfolio. Pair those two with the specific “editorial process” section for your chosen title.
Sample Planning Scenarios
Fast Triage, Two-Round Path
Your paper clears screening within two weeks at a selective title, reaches referees, and returns reports at week five. You receive a “major revision,” complete lab work in seven weeks, and resubmit. The second review takes three weeks and the editor accepts within a week. Total: about 4–5 months from submission to acceptance.
High-Volume Journal, One-Round Path
You submit to a broad-scope venue that aims to issue first decisions within 45 days. Reports come back in five weeks with minor textual edits. You revise in two weeks and the editor confirms acceptance the following week. Total: about 10–12 weeks end-to-end.
What If Things Stall?
Polite status checks are fine when a step extends well beyond posted norms. Keep messages short. A single line that references the manuscript ID and asks if any further details from your side would help is enough. Avoid frequent nudges; one message after a clear delay is usually all that’s needed.
Bottom Line For Scheduling
Plan for a quick editorial screen, a month or so for each external review round, and a comparable window for revisions. Titles that post medians near 10 days for early decisions move swiftly if the paper is a strong fit. Journals that aim for up to 45 days at the first decision still progress steadily once reviewers are in place. With prepared data packages and crisp responses, your manuscript can move from submission to acceptance within a few months at many portfolio venues.
Method Notes And Sources
This guide synthesizes posted policies and speed statements from Nature-branded journals along with the portfolio’s definitions of timing metrics. For policy details on reviewer numbers and decision categories, see the portfolio’s peer review policy. For speed definitions and per-journal reporting, see the portfolio-wide journal metrics overview, the Nature Communications timing commitment, and the Scientific Reports editorial process. Editorial stage descriptions for other titles can be found on each journal’s “editorial process” page.