International Journal of Molecular Sciences Acceptance Rate

IJMS is commonly estimated to accept about 30-40% of submissions. MDPI's journal statistics page lists 115,039 papers published since the journal was founded in 2000, across molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, pharmacology, and related areas.

To put it in perspective:

• Nature Communications: ~8% acceptance

• PLOS ONE: ~40% acceptance

• IJMS: ~30-40% acceptance

• Scientific Reports: ~57% acceptance

IJMS is selective but not highly exclusive. A technically sound paper with a clear molecular science focus has a real chance. The journal does not require the broad significance that Science Advances or Nature Communications expect.

IJMS covers molecular-level research across a wide range: biochemistry, molecular genetics, cell biology, structural biology, pharmacology, bioinformatics, and related disciplines. The scope is genuinely broad, which is both a strength (many papers fit) and a challenge (editors need to assess fit carefully).

IJMS's instructions say that papers that only contain clinical trials or clinical data are not acceptable, and its aims and scope describe molecules as the object of study, so epidemiology without molecular components or engineering work without a clear biological or molecular angle is a poor fit.

Desk rejection at IJMS is less aggressive than at high-IF journals, but it does happen. Common reasons:

Out of scope. Clinical studies without molecular mechanistic work, purely computational papers without biological validation, or engineering papers without a clear molecular biology component get rejected before review.

Quality threshold failures. Papers with obvious methodological errors, missing controls, or conclusions unsupported by data are screened out. IJMS editors don't invest reviewers in papers that need fundamental redesign.

Language quality. MDPI makes authors responsible for submitting in correct English, and its technical pre-check covers the overall legibility of the manuscript. Papers where language problems impede scientific evaluation risk delays and even rejection.

Redundancy. If your paper is clearly a replicate of published work without substantial new insight, it won't advance to review.

MDPI publishes one journal-wide median for submission to first decision (see below), not a separate desk-decision time.

IJMS uses external peer review, and MDPI collects at least two review reports for each manuscript that proceeds to peer review. The journal runs a rapid review model: reviewers who accept an invitation are generally given 7 to 10 days (extensions are common and can be granted on request) rather than the 3-6 week windows common at society journals.

What reviewers look for:

Methodological soundness comes first. Controls should be appropriate and clearly reported. Statistical analysis must match the data type and research question. IJMS reviewers are specialists in molecular sciences, so technical shortcuts get noticed.

Clarity of contribution matters. The paper should articulate what it adds to the existing literature. A well-executed but purely confirmatory study needs to explain why replication with a different model or system is valuable.

Data completeness. N numbers, biological replicates vs. technical replicates, and appropriate validation of key findings are standard review checkpoints.

MDPI's IJMS page reports that a first decision is provided approximately 17.5 days after submission, and that acceptance to publication takes 2.9 days (median values for papers published in this journal in the first half of 2026). The rapid review model accelerates the process compared to traditional peer review timelines: reviewers are generally given 7 to 10 days, and the Academic Editor makes the first decision once at least two review reports are in.

This is faster than most society journals and comparable to other MDPI journals. For authors with time pressure or those resubmitting after rejection elsewhere, this turnaround is a real practical advantage.

Acceptance after minor revision: Most common positive outcome. Reviewers request clarification, improved figures, or additional statistics. MDPI states that authors are generally given five days for minor revision.

Major revision: Significant new experiments or reanalysis required. Less common than at journals with lower throughput but it does occur for papers close to the bar. MDPI states that authors are generally given ten days for major revision, and up to two rounds of major revision are usually allowed.

Rejection with option to resubmit: Substantial changes needed but the topic fits. Under MDPI's reject-and-encourage-resubmission decision, authors can resubmit to the same journal after completing revisions; the resubmission receives a new manuscript ID, is linked to the original submission, and goes to the same reviewers.

Rejection: Outside scope, quality threshold not met, or irretrievably flawed methodology.

The 30-40% acceptance rate reflects a journal that has clear standards but isn't hunting for field-changing results. If your paper:

• Is within molecular sciences scope

• Has adequate controls and sound methodology

• Makes a clear if modest contribution to the literature

• Is written clearly enough for reviewers to evaluate...then IJMS is a realistic target. The journal is more accessible than high-IF journals but more demanding than bottom-tier open access journals.

IJMS charges an Article Processing Charge (APC) of CHF 2,900 for papers accepted after peer review (MDPI's IJMS APC page, accessed 2026-10-09). Many institutions and funders cover MDPI APCs through MDPI's Institutional Open Access Program or OA funds.

The most common reason a solid IJMS-level paper gets desk rejected: scope mismatch. Read the aims and scope carefully. Check that your study involves molecular-level investigation - not just clinical outcomes or bulk tissue experiments without mechanistic insight.

If you're uncertain whether your paper is ready, a International Journal of Molecular Sciences submission readiness check evaluates your manuscript against the journal's specific criteria and flags what reviewers would likely flag.

For manuscripts targeting International Journal of Molecular Sciences, three recurring patterns explain the majority of desk rejections and post-review failures. Each reflects the journal's standard: technically sound molecular science with clear scope fit, adequate controls, and meaningful comparison to existing work.

Scope mismatch: clinical or applied study without molecular mechanistic depth.

IJMS has a defined molecular science scope and editors identify scope mismatches quickly. The failure pattern is a paper with primarily clinical outcomes data, an animal efficacy study measuring disease markers, or an applied pharmacology study measuring drug effects without characterizing the molecular mechanism responsible.

A paper showing that a plant extract reduces inflammatory markers in a mouse model, or that a pharmaceutical compound improves glucose tolerance in diabetic rats, without characterizing which molecular targets, signaling pathways, or gene expression changes are responsible, is a pharmacology or physiology paper, not a molecular sciences paper. The introduction and results may mention gene names or pathway terms, but if the molecular mechanism is speculative rather than experimentally established, the paper does not meet IJMS's scope requirement.

Missing comparison to existing literature or current state-of-the-art methods.

IJMS reviewers are specialists in their molecular science subfields and routinely reject papers that do not position the contribution relative to recent published work. The failure pattern is a paper presenting a new finding or method without comparing it to existing approaches, without citing papers published in the past 2-3 years that address the same question, or without acknowledging how the new result extends or contradicts prior work.

A paper proposing a new computational tool without comparing it to current best-practice methods, a paper reporting a new gene function without discussing recent publications on the same gene or pathway, or a paper describing a new protein interaction without citing the structural or functional literature, consistently receives reviewer requests to explain what is genuinely new relative to recent work. This is frequently the reason papers that are scientifically sound still fail review.

Methodological gaps that should have been identified before submission.

IJMS peer reviewers identify the same types of missing controls and validation steps that reviewers at higher-IF journals identify, because the reviewers are the same scientists. The failure pattern is a paper reporting molecular biology results where critical controls are missing: a protein overexpression paper without the corresponding knockdown to confirm the phenotype is specific, a gene knockout paper without rescue experiment, a binding assay without negative controls, or a cell viability study where the readout confounds different types of cell death.

These are not minor revisions; they are the difference between a publishable paper and a paper that makes claims the data cannot support. A IJMS submission readiness check can identify whether these methodological gaps are present before submission.

The acceptance rate for International Journal of Molecular Sciences does not distinguish between desk rejections and post-review rejections. A paper desk-rejected in 2 weeks and a paper rejected after 4 months of review both count the same. The rate also does not reveal how acceptance varies by article type, geographic origin, or research area within the journal's scope.

Acceptance rates cannot predict your individual odds. A strong paper with clear scope fit, complete data, and solid methodology has substantially better odds than the headline number suggests. A weak paper with methodology gaps will be rejected regardless of the journal's overall rate.

A IJMS submission readiness check identifies the specific framing and scope issues that trigger desk rejection before you submit.