The submission status “Editor Decision Started” often triggers anxiety for authors, as it signals the end of the long assessment period and the imminent arrival of a verdict on their research. For a prestigious publication like Nature, which accepts only a small percentage of submissions, this status represents the final, high-stakes stage. It is the moment the handling editor begins to weigh all internal and external factors to decide the manuscript’s fate in the intensely competitive world of academic publishing. The status change confirms that the manuscript has transitioned from the external evaluation phase to the purely internal process of editorial deliberation.
Decoding the “Editor Decision Started” Status
The status “Editor Decision Started” means that the peer review process for the manuscript is officially complete, marking a significant shift from the “under review” phase. This status confirms that the handling editor has received all requested materials, including the external reviewer reports and any author responses from a previous revision round. At this point, the manuscript is taken out of the queue for external input, and no further reviewers are sought to evaluate the work. This phase is purely internal to the editorial office, where the editor focuses on synthesizing the feedback received. While the duration of this status can vary, it is generally short, often lasting from a few days to a week, reflecting the editor’s focus on efficiently translating the collected data into a formal decision letter.
The Internal Review: How Editors Synthesize Feedback
During the “Editor Decision Started” phase, the handling editor undertakes a detailed process to determine the manuscript’s standing. The primary task is to reconcile any conflicting opinions or recommendations found within the peer reviewer reports, which is common in novel scientific work. The editor must act as an arbiter, assessing the technical validity of criticisms against the strength of the authors’ data and arguments. This synthesis involves determining which reviewer points are necessary for publication and which may stem from a misunderstanding or a difference in scientific perspective.
Beyond technical assessment, the editor evaluates the manuscript against Nature’s rigorous editorial criteria, which extend beyond scientific soundness. These criteria include the work’s broad significance, its potential appeal to a multidisciplinary readership, and the novelty of the scientific advance it represents. The editor must determine if the findings are truly transformative and warrant publication in a journal with such a wide scope and influence.
For a final decision to be issued, the handling editor frequently consults with a senior or chief editor, especially for manuscripts that have undergone full peer review. This consultation process ensures that the decision aligns with the journal’s overall standards and current editorial strategy, providing a second layer of scrutiny. The complexity of resolving contradictory reviews or making a borderline decision often necessitates this collegial discussion. This internal deliberation confirms that the handling editor’s proposed outcome is supported by the editorial leadership before it is communicated to the authors.
Understanding Possible Outcomes and Next Steps
Once the editor’s internal review is complete, the decision letter will contain one of three primary outcomes for the manuscript. The rarest outcome is outright acceptance, which signifies that the manuscript is scientifically sound, meets all of Nature’s criteria, and requires only minor copyediting. A more common outcome is a decision for “revise and resubmit,” indicating that the work is promising but requires further experimentation or clarification. This decision means the editor believes the concerns raised by reviewers are resolvable and the manuscript has a realistic chance of eventual acceptance. The third potential outcome, and statistically the most frequent for Nature, is rejection. A rejection may come with a recommendation to transfer the manuscript, along with the peer reviews, to another journal within the Nature Portfolio, if the work is high quality but does not meet the necessary threshold for broad significance required by Nature.
Upon receiving the decision letter, the author’s immediate next step should be a careful reading of all accompanying documents, including the editor’s summary and the full reviewer reports. If a revision is requested, the authors must meticulously plan a point-by-point response that addresses every criticism, often requiring new data or analysis. In the event of a rejection, authors should use the detailed feedback to improve the manuscript before submitting it to a different, more appropriate journal, or consider pursuing the recommended transfer option.