Is International Journal of Molecular Sciences a Good Journal? 2026 Guide

Decision cue: If your molecular biology research is solid but wouldn't pass the novelty bar at PLOS Biology or eLife, IJMS is appropriate. Compare with recent papers in the journal to assess fit.

What International Journal of Molecular Sciences actually is

IJMS is an MDPI journal. That matters because it signals fast processing, open-access model, reasonable bar, and solid publisher infrastructure. MDPI journals aren't predatory. They're indexed, peer-reviewed, legitimate. But they're also broader and easier than specialty society journals or Nature titles.

This is a journal for solid molecular biology research. Not "not good enough for anywhere else." Solid. Reproducible. Methodologically sound. But maybe not the breakthrough that would make eLife editors excited.

The numbers

Impact factor: 4.9 (2024 JCR). Q1 ranking. #72 of 319 molecular biology journals. Above median, clear Q1, respectable but not top-tier.

Acceptance rate: ~45-55%. Higher than eLife (~25%), lower than Scientific Reports (~57%).

APC: $1,800-2,500 for open access via MDPI. Less expensive than Elsevier or Wiley journals.

Review timeline: 3-8 weeks to first decision on average. MDPI journals are known for fast processing.

Scope: Molecular sciences broadly. Molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, protein chemistry, cell biology with molecular focus.

Is it prestigious?

Moderately. A CV with IJMS papers isn't a red flag, but it's also not a selling point like eLife or PLOS Biology would be. Hiring committees recognize IJMS as legitimate. It's indexed everywhere. The IF is solidly respectable.

But let's be honest: if you could publish the same paper in eLife (IF 6.4), you should. IJMS is a step down in prestige. For a PhD student's first publication, IJMS is reasonable. For a postdoc building a faculty record in a competitive field, you want to push higher.

Who publishes there

Broad mix. PhD students finishing projects, postdocs at regional universities, faculty at smaller institutions, some researchers from top groups publishing their solid supporting data.

The journal sees heavy use from international researchers where top-tier publication is harder to access. This is actually a feature. Science happens everywhere.

The review process

Desk rejection is minimal. Maybe 10-15% get desk rejected. MDPI journals try to be inclusive, which means they send most submissions to peer review.

Peer review is typically 2-3 reviewers assessing whether the work is sound, properly presented, and within scope. Not assessing whether it's trendy or exciting.

IJMS vs. other options

vs. PLOS ONE (IF 2.6): Both have similar broad scope and high acceptance rates. IJMS is Q1, PLOS ONE is barely Q2. IJMS is the stronger choice.

vs. eLife (IF 6.4): eLife is more selective and has better reputation. If your paper could get into eLife, submit there first. If rejected, IJMS is a good secondary.

vs. Scientific Reports (IF 3.9): Both are broad-scope, high-acceptance journals. Scientific Reports is Nature-branded which carries weight. IJMS is cheaper APC.

Submit to IJMS if:

• Your molecular biology research is technically sound
• You're building your publication record as a PhD or postdoc
• You prefer open-access model
• You want faster review than traditional journals
• You've been rejected from higher-tier journals and believe the work should be published

Think twice if:

• Your work is strong enough for eLife or PLOS Biology
• You're a faculty candidate in a competitive field (aim higher)
• You need the paper to carry significant prestige weight

Bottom line

IJMS is a solid, legitimate journal with moderate prestige. It's not a dump pile and it's not elite. It's a reasonable home for good molecular biology research that doesn't meet the bar for top-tier journals. If that describes your paper, submit.