Is Science a Good Journal? Reputation, Fit and Who Should Submit

Asking whether Science is a good journal is a bit like asking whether Harvard is a good university. The answer is obviously yes. The real question is whether your paper belongs there, and for the vast majority of researchers, the honest answer is no.

That's not an insult. It's math. Science gets over 12,000 submissions per year and publishes fewer than 800 research articles. The acceptance rate sits below 7%. Even excellent, well-conducted studies get rejected because they don't cross the threshold of broad significance that Science demands.

Here's what you actually need to know.

Reputation

Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), has been running since 1880. Along with Nature and Cell, it sits at the very top of the journal prestige hierarchy across virtually all scientific fields.

A paper in Science signals one thing: this work is important enough that scientists outside your field should know about it. That's the editorial bar. Not "good science" (lots of journals publish good science), but "science that changes how people in multiple disciplines think."

The impact factor is 45.8 (JCR 2024). The 5-year IF is 49.7. It ranks 3rd out of 135 in Multidisciplinary Sciences. These numbers are among the highest of any journal, period.

On your CV, a Science paper carries weight that transcends field boundaries. Grant committees, hiring panels, and tenure reviewers all recognize it. In many fields, a single first-author Science paper can be career-defining.

Strengths

Visibility. Nothing else comes close. A paper in Science gets covered by mainstream media, discussed on social media, and read by scientists in completely unrelated fields. If your work has public health, policy, or societal implications, Science amplifies that reach like no specialist journal can.

Speed of review. Science moves fast for papers it's interested in. Editorial decisions (reject or send to review) typically come within 1-2 weeks. Peer review, when it happens, takes 4-8 weeks. The total timeline from submission to publication can be remarkably short for a journal of this caliber.

Rigorous review. Papers published in Science have been through an intense review process. That stamp of approval carries real credibility.

No APC for standard articles. Science is a subscription journal. Authors don't pay publication fees for standard research articles. (Science Advances, the sister journal, charges an APC for open access.)

Weaknesses

Format constraints. Science research articles are short, typically 2,500-3,000 words with 3-4 figures. If your work needs extensive methodological detail or nuanced discussion, the format forces you to compress. Supplementary materials can be extensive, but the main text has to be concise.

High rejection rate. Under 7%. Most rejections happen at the editorial stage, before peer review. If your paper doesn't immediately signal broad significance, the editors won't send it out. This means weeks of preparation for a submission that might get a desk reject in 10 days.

Revision demands. When Science does send your paper to review and the reviewers are interested, they often ask for additional experiments. This can add months to the process, especially in experimental biology or climate science where new data collection takes time.

Perception pressure. There's an academic culture problem where researchers feel their work isn't "real" unless it's in Science or Nature. This leads to repeated submissions to top journals when the work would be better served (and published faster) in a strong specialty journal.

Who should submit

Submit to Science if all of these apply:

1. Your finding has broad significance. Would a biologist care about your physics result? Would a chemist want to know about your ecology finding? If the answer is yes, Science might be the right venue.

1. The result is unexpected or paradigm-shifting. Incremental advances, even important ones, typically don't cross the Science threshold. The work needs to change how people think about something.

1. Your data is airtight. Science editors and reviewers will scrutinize every claim. Preliminary results, small sample sizes, or qualified conclusions won't survive the review process.

1. You can handle the timeline risk. A submission to Science means potentially 2-4 months of waiting (desk reject + revision + re-review) before you either get published or start over at another journal. If you're on a tenure clock or grant deadline, factor this in.

1. Your work has implications beyond academia. Policy relevance, public health significance, or technological breakthroughs get extra attention from editors.

Who should avoid it

Researchers with solid but field-specific work. A rigorous study on protein structure that advances structural biology but doesn't change broader understanding belongs in a journal like Nature Structural & Molecular Biology or PNAS, not Science.

Early-career researchers testing the waters. Submitting to Science "just to see" is a common strategy, but the opportunity cost is real. The 2-4 months you spend in Science's pipeline could be spent getting published in a strong Q1 journal.

Papers with incomplete data. If you know reviewers will ask for additional experiments, don't submit to Science until you have them. The journal rarely gives extended revision timelines, and a rejection after revision is worse than a desk reject.

Papers that need long methods sections. If the contribution is primarily methodological and requires detailed protocols to evaluate, a methods-focused journal serves the work better.

Better alternatives by goal

For broad visibility with less competition: PNAS (IF 9.4, JCR 2024) publishes across all sciences with a higher acceptance rate and still carries strong prestige.

For fast, open-access multidisciplinary publication: Science Advances (IF 11.7, JCR 2024) is Science's sister journal. It's open access, has a broader acceptance rate, and still carries the AAAS brand.

For the highest specialty impact: The top journal in your specific field (Nature Genetics, Physical Review Letters, The Lancet, JACS, etc.) may have more influence on your actual research community than a Science paper would.

For policy-relevant environmental work: Nature Climate Change or Nature Sustainability reach the right audience more directly than Science for climate and sustainability research.

The submission reality

Most Science submissions follow this path: submit, wait 1-2 weeks, receive a desk rejection saying the editors found the work interesting but not of sufficient broad significance for Science, and a suggestion to consider Science Advances or a specialist journal.

That's normal. It happens to excellent researchers with excellent work. The desk rejection isn't a judgment on quality. It's a judgment on scope and significance for a general scientific audience.

If you decide to submit, write the cover letter carefully. Editors read hundreds of them. Make the broad significance obvious in the first two sentences. Don't explain your methods. Explain why a geologist and a microbiologist and a physicist should all care about what you found.

Sources

• AAAS journal information and author guidelines
• JCR 2024 (Clarivate Journal Citation Reports) for impact factor data
• Published editorial statements from Science editors

See also

• How to Avoid Desk Rejection
• How to Choose a Journal for Your Paper
• Pre-Submission Checklist