Is Your Paper Ready for Science? What AAAS Editors Filter For

Science editors make desk rejection decisions based on three criteria, and they're blunt about it: novelty, broad significance, and scientific rigor. But how Science defines these terms is specific.

Novelty at Science means conceptual disruption. Not "this hasn't been shown before" but "this changes how people think about something." A new measurement of a known phenomenon using a better instrument won't clear the desk. A measurement that reveals the known phenomenon works differently than everyone assumed will.

Broad significance means cross-disciplinary legibility. Science editors are acutely aware of their readership, which spans every scientific discipline. Research that makes an important contribution to a specialist field but isn't understandable or relevant beyond that field doesn't fit. The bar isn't that a chemist must understand your neuroscience paper in detail, but they should understand why the finding matters.

Scientific rigor is assumed, not rewarded. You don't get points for having clean methods. You get desk-rejected for having weak ones. Methodological problems visible in the abstract or figures are immediate disqualifiers.

Science's Information for Authors page lists one main research format, the Research Article, in two lengths:

Many submissions to Science work best at the standard length. The format forces brevity, and Science editors view that as a feature. If your finding can be communicated in the standard length, do not pad it into a longer package.

The extended online format is for a few Research Articles whose results cannot be fully presented within the standard constraints, and the cover letter should say why the additional length is merited. The submission system asks whether your Research Article should be considered for it.

Both journals decline most submissions before external review, but the experience is different.

Science is faster. Science reports a median of 8 days from submission to first decision, and authors of papers not selected for review are notified within about 2 weeks. Nature usually takes one to two weeks.

Science is more concise in rejection communications. You'll typically get a brief email explaining that the paper doesn't meet the journal's criteria for broad significance. Don't expect detailed feedback on why your specific paper was declined. The volume makes individualized feedback impossible.

Science does offer a transfer route within the Science family. Authors submitting to Science may indicate interest in transfer to another Science journal, such as Science Advances, and if the manuscript is a good candidate they receive a transfer offer and confirm the choice before transfer is initiated. Editors at the second journal may use the information gathered during evaluation at Science to expedite review, including reuse of the reviews. Science Advances is a natural landing spot for papers that are strong but too specialized for Science.

If your paper clears the desk (about 15% of submissions in 2025), it enters peer review. Science's review process has some distinctive features:

Speed. Science aims for fast turnaround. The median time from submission to the first decision after outside review was 64 days in 2025. This reflects the journal's preference for timely, high-impact findings.

Review depth. Science consults at least two outside reviewers per paper, who are asked to return comments within 2 weeks for most papers. Reviews tend to be focused and action-oriented. Lengthy philosophical reviews are less common than at Cell or Nature.

Revision expectations. If you get a revision request, take it seriously and respond thoroughly, and follow the editorial requirements in your revision letter and checklist.

Letters and eLetters. Science publishes Letters (up to 300 words) on material published in Science in the past 3 months, and eLetters, which are brief online comments on published articles. The authors of a paper in question are usually given an opportunity to reply. This means your paper, if published, may face immediate public scrutiny. Make sure your methods and conclusions can withstand that scrutiny before you submit.

Several Science-specific formatting and submission requirements catch authors off guard:

Previously published work prohibition. Science only considers research papers reporting primary data and main conclusions for the first time. If you've published any part of the data or conclusions elsewhere, even in a different context, disclose it in your cover letter.

Online-only supplementary materials. Science asks for the Materials and Methods in the supplementary materials, but the main paper must stand alone. Don't hide critical results in the supplement. Reviewers notice, and they don't like it.

Abstract format. Science uses a one-paragraph structured abstract with no subheadings. Keep it to 125 words or less. Every word counts. Don't waste space on background the reader already knows.

Reference limits. Research Articles allow about 50 main-text references, or up to 100 in the extended online format. Science editors prefer tight reference lists. Cite what's essential, not everything you've read.

Ask yourself these questions before preparing a Science submission:

Can you explain the significance in one sentence that a scientist in a different field would understand? Not "we discovered a new pathway in hepatocyte lipid metabolism" but "we found that the liver processes fat using a mechanism that contradicts 30 years of textbook biology." If you can't frame it that broadly and honestly, Science isn't the right target.

Is the finding timely? Science has a stronger preference for timely research than Nature does. If your finding connects to a current scientific debate, an ongoing public health challenge, or an emerging technology, that works in your favor. If it's a careful, methodical study that happens to be finished now but could have been done five years ago, Science may not bite.

Can the paper be told compactly? Science rewards concision. If your story requires a long methods-heavy main text to make sense, it may be a better fit for Cell (which embraces long, mechanistically complete papers) or Nature (which is more flexible on length).

Are you prepared for a fast-paced process? Science moves quickly. You might get a desk rejection in about a week (the median is 8 days), a review decision in about nine weeks (the median is 64 days), and a revision deadline that's tight. If your lab is in the middle of a move or your corresponding author is on sabbatical, timing matters.

Science and Nature aren't interchangeable. Each has editorial preferences that favor certain types of work:

Choose Science when your paper has a clear, concise message that doesn't require extensive mechanistic detail. When your finding is timely and connects to a broader scientific or societal conversation. When your work is in physical sciences, environmental science, social science, or science policy, where Science has traditionally stronger coverage.

Choose Nature when your paper tells a complete mechanistic story that needs space to unfold. When the finding is field-changing regardless of timing. When your work is in the life sciences, where Nature has the larger editorial team and readership.

Consider both if your paper has genuine cross-disciplinary impact and fits either journal's format constraints. Submitting to one doesn't prevent you from later submitting to the other (after rejection, not simultaneously).

Science editors read cover letters carefully. Yours should be one page maximum with three clear elements:

First, state what you found. Not the background, not the methods. The finding. One to two sentences.

Second, explain why it matters broadly. Connect the finding to a question that scientists across disciplines would recognize. This is where most cover letters fail. Authors describe importance within their field instead of across fields.

Third, explain why now. If there's a reason this finding is particularly timely, relevant to a current debate, or connected to a topic of broad scientific interest, say so.

Don't list your credentials. Don't name-drop. Don't write "we believe this paper is suitable for Science." The editors will decide that.

A Science submission readiness check can evaluate your manuscript's fit for Science's specific editorial criteria, including whether your abstract and framing communicate the broad significance that desk editors screen for.

Science rejects most submissions before external review. The exact percentage varies by article type and reporting source, so use the desk screen as a qualitative filter: if the broad-consequence case is not obvious on first read, the paper is unlikely to reach reviewers.

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

For manuscripts targeting Science, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

The advance that is significant within a field but not across fields. Science's author guidelines say the journal seeks papers that are influential in their fields or across fields and that present novel and broadly important data, syntheses, or concepts; in our experience, findings with significance primarily within a subspecialty face desk rejection regardless of technical quality. We see this pattern in manuscripts we review more frequently than any other Science-specific failure.

Papers that advance understanding of a specific molecular pathway, material class, or computational method without demonstrating why scientists in other disciplines should care do not pass editorial triage. In our experience, many of the manuscripts we review targeting Science are excellent within-field advances that lack the cross-disciplinary significance Science requires.

The paper that exceeds the strict format limits. Per Science's author instructions, Research Articles should not exceed 3,000 words of main text, with 3 to 5 display items and about 50 main-text references, or up to 6,000 words, 6 display items and 100 references in the extended online format. We see this in many of the manuscripts we review for Science, where authors submit papers formatted as if for a broad-scope research journal without adapting to Science's compact format requirements.

Science's author page does not say what happens to a paper that exceeds the limits, so check the limits for your article type before upload.

The study without a Supplementary Materials package that supports the main text. According to Science's initial-manuscript instructions, the Materials and Methods go in the supplementary materials and must provide sufficient detail to allow replication, and all data must be shown in the main text or supplementary materials or be available in a permanent, publicly accessible repository.

In our experience, many of the manuscripts we review for Science have supplementary materials that are too thin to allow proper evaluation of the paper's central claims. Editors consistently identify papers where the scientific story cannot be independently evaluated from the materials provided.

The overreaching interpretation of preliminary data.

Interpretations must be supported by the data presented; papers that make sweeping mechanistic claims based on correlative or indirect evidence face rejection after review. We see this in many of the manuscripts we review for Science, where a genuinely surprising finding is accompanied by interpretations that go well beyond what the experimental evidence can support. Editors consistently flag papers where the conclusions are exciting but exceed what the experiments demonstrate.

The important finding in a crowded recent literature. Science asks for papers that present novel data, syntheses, or concepts; in our experience, papers that closely resemble work published shortly before submission face rejection on originality grounds even when the authors were not aware of the competing publication.

We see this in many of the manuscripts we review for Science, where authors submit findings that overlap substantially with papers published during the review process or immediately before submission. Editors consistently check the recent literature for competing work before accepting papers.

SciRev lists author-reported review times for Science.

Before submitting to Science, a Science manuscript fit check identifies whether the cross-disciplinary significance, format compliance, and interpretive scope meet the journal's editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Ready to submit if:

• You can pass every item on this checklist without qualifying language

• An experienced colleague in your field has read the manuscript and agrees it's competitive

• The data package is complete - no pending experiments or analyses

• You have identified why this journal specifically (not just prestige) is the right venue

Not ready yet if:

• You skipped items on this checklist because you "plan to add them later"

• The methods section still has draft or incomplete protocol text

• Key figures are drafts rather than publication-quality

• You cannot articulate what distinguishes this paper from recent publications in this journal

For a manuscript-specific signal before you submit, run a free readiness scan.

Ready and well-matched are two different questions. See where Science lands among the venues that fit my abstract.

• Manusights local fit and process context from Science acceptance rate, Science journal submission guide, Science submission guide, and Science cover letter.

• Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (2026 release for the current citation metric)