Is Nature Communications a Good Journal? An Honest Assessment

Nature Communications has an impact factor of 15.7 and publishes somewhere around 9,000 papers per year. Those two facts together make it a genuinely unusual journal. Most high-IF journals are selective and low-volume. Most high-volume journals have modest impact factors. Nature Communications sits in a strange middle ground, and that's exactly what makes researchers ask: is this actually a good journal?

The short answer is yes. But the longer answer is more useful.

What Nature Communications Actually Is

Nature Communications is a fully open-access journal published by Springer Nature. It launched in 2010 as part of the Nature Portfolio - the same family of journals that includes Nature, Nature Medicine, Nature Genetics, and about 50 other branded titles.

It's not Nature. Let's be clear about that. Nature publishes a few hundred papers per year and an acceptance rate around 8%. Nature Communications publishes roughly 9,000. That volume difference matters.

What Nature Communications does is serve as the high-impact generalist home for research that's excellent but doesn't quite clear the bar for Nature itself, or that isn't specialized enough for a field-specific Nature journal. Think of it as a genuine high-quality destination, not a fallback bin.

The impact factor of 15.7 places it above most specialist journals and in the same tier as PNAS, Science Advances, and eLife at its pre-2023 peak.

The Impact Factor in Context

15.9 is a strong number. Here's where it sits relative to journals competing for similar manuscripts:

Nature Communications' IF is genuinely high, not inflated by any obvious bibliometric trick. It's a wide-scope journal that collects citations across many fields, which tends to favor generalist journals in IF calculations. But 15.7 reflects real citation activity, not a statistical artifact.

Does the Volume Hurt It?

This is the main criticism, and it's fair to raise. Publishing 9,000 papers per year means the journal can't maintain the scarcity that drives extreme prestige at CNS journals. Hiring committees know this. A Nature Communications paper doesn't signal the same thing as a Nature paper.

But that's comparing it to an unfair standard. Compared to PNAS or Science Advances, the volume isn't dramatically higher, and the IF is better. Compared to specialist journals in most fields, a Nature Comms paper is a strong result.

The APC: Is €5,390 Worth It?

The APC for Nature Communications is €5,390, making it one of the most expensive open-access journals in existence. That price point raises a real question: is the prestige worth it?

It depends on your situation.

If your institution has a Springer Nature read-and-publish agreement, you likely pay nothing. These agreements are widespread across European and North American universities. Check with your library before worrying about the cost.

If you're self-funding, €5,390 is real money. In that case, compare: Science Advances costs $5,000 (similar prestige, lower volume), PNAS costs $1,950 for members (lower IF but strong brand). The cost-to-prestige ratio isn't clearly favorable for Nature Comms when you're paying out-of-pocket.

For career-stage considerations, if you're a postdoc building your first author publication record, a Nature Communications paper can genuinely move things. It shows up clearly on a CV, it's recognized internationally, and the Nature Portfolio brand communicates quality without you needing to explain it in interviews.

The ~20% Acceptance Rate: What It Really Means

The overall acceptance rate is roughly 20%, but this number needs unpacking.

Nature Communications desk rejects a large fraction of submissions - often within 7-10 days. If you get a desk rejection, it means the editors decided the work doesn't fit the journal's scope or doesn't meet the bar for broad significance, without sending it to reviewers.

Among papers that make it to peer review, the dynamics are more favorable. If editors send your paper out, they've already decided it has merit. The question then becomes whether the reviewers confirm it.

The 20% figure includes all those desk rejections. The effective acceptance rate for papers that reach peer review is meaningfully higher. This matters for how you think about your submission strategy.

Who Gets Published There

Looking at the actual output of Nature Communications, a few patterns emerge:

• Strong first-mechanism papers from established labs
• Interdisciplinary work with clear crossover appeal (e.g., physics methods applied to biological questions)
• Papers from researchers with solid track records, though early-career first authors appear regularly
• Work from institutions with Springer Nature read-and-publish deals (Europe especially)

It's not an insider network. The peer review process is genuine. But the editors have a lot of submissions to manage, and papers with clear broad significance get prioritized in initial screening.

When to Target Nature Communications

Target Nature Communications when:

• Your results would interest scientists outside your immediate subfield
• You have a mechanistic advance, not just a descriptive study
• Your institution has an SNAPP read-and-publish deal (removes the APC barrier)
• You want a generalist high-impact home and don't have a strong case for a flagship journal

Don't target Nature Communications when:

• The paper's primary significance is to specialists in one narrow field (a field-specific journal will serve it better)
• You're on a tight timeline and can't afford a 3-6 month review process
• The APC is uncovered and your budget is limited
• Your work is incremental - the journal specifically wants advances, not confirmations

Career Impact: Does It Move the Needle?

For researchers in the early to mid stages of their careers, yes. A Nature Communications paper on a CV communicates clearly to people who hire researchers. You don't need to explain the journal's prestige; anyone in science knows it immediately.

For senior researchers, it's a solid result but doesn't dramatically change anything. If you've already published in Nature, Cell, or Science, a Nature Communications paper adds to your output count but isn't a landmark moment.

For clinical researchers moving into translational science, Nature Communications carries particular weight because it accepts work spanning the basic-to-clinical spectrum.

One important caveat: publishing there doesn't guarantee visibility. With 9,000 papers per year, papers can get lost. Promotion, good figures, and engaging with the broader community still matter for whether your work gets read.

Nature Communications vs. Science Advances: The Real Comparison

Researchers often face a choice between these two. Here's an honest side-by-side:

Impact factor: Nature Communications wins (15.7 vs 12.5).

Brand recognition: Close, but Nature Portfolio edges AAAS in most non-US markets.

Selectivity: Science Advances' effective post-review acceptance is lower. About 10% vs 20%. So Science Advances is arguably harder to get into despite the lower IF.

APC: Science Advances is $890 cheaper. Not a huge difference if your institution covers it, meaningful if you're paying.

Speed: Science Advances typically gives first decisions faster.

For most purposes, the difference between these two journals is marginal. Pick based on fit - which journal's published papers look most like yours?

Don't Let Desk Rejection Discourage You

One of the most practical things to know before submitting to Nature Communications: desk rejection isn't a judgment on your science. It means the editors didn't see the broad significance angle, or your cover letter didn't make it clear.

The Bottom Line

Is Nature Communications a good journal? Yes. It's a legitimate, rigorous, high-impact publication with real peer review and a genuine place in the scientific literature.

Is it Nature? No. The volume is much higher, and the prestige is correspondingly lower than the flagship.

Is it the right journal for your paper? That depends on whether your work has the interdisciplinary breadth the editors are looking for. If it does, it's one of the better options in the open-access multidisciplinary space.

For a full breakdown of submission strategy and what the editors actually look for, see our journal profile for Nature Communications.

The Desk Rejection Reality and What to Do About It

Nature Communications desk rejects roughly 50-60% of all submissions, usually within 7-10 days. That's not a flaw in the system: it's how a journal that receives thousands of submissions per month stays manageable.

What triggers a desk rejection? Most commonly: the paper's significance feels discipline-specific rather than broad, the abstract doesn't make the cross-field interest obvious, or the cover letter reads like a specialist memo rather than a pitch to a generalist editor.

The fix is almost always about framing, not about the science itself. Editors are reading your abstract and cover letter to answer one question: would a physicist care about this biology paper, or vice versa? If the answer isn't clear in 30 seconds, the paper goes back.

This is worth getting right before you submit, not after your first desk rejection. A pre-submission review of your cover letter and abstract framing can prevent a fast no on work that genuinely deserves full peer review.

Sources

• Clarivate Journal Citation Reports 2025 (2024 impact factor data)
• Springer Nature Author Services: nature.com/ncomms
• Springer Nature read-and-publish agreement list: springernature.com/gp/open-research/institutional-agreements
• Nature Communications impact factor trend
• Nature Communications APC guide
• Submission process guide
• Full journal profile

See also

• Nature Communications Impact Factor 2026
• Nature Communications Submission Process 2026
• Nature Communications Review Time