Is Science Advances a Good Journal? The AAAS Open Access Option Assessed

Science Advances is the AAAS open-access journal. AAAS publishes Science - one of the three most prestigious scientific journals on the planet. That lineage matters, and it's the first thing to understand about whether Science Advances is a good journal.

The short answer: yes, it's. But the reasons why, and the honest limitations, are worth spelling out for anyone trying to decide whether to submit there.

The AAAS Brand and What It Means

Science Advances launched in 2015, positioned as the open-access companion to Science. It doesn't publish the same work as Science - nothing does - but it shares the AAAS editorial culture: emphasis on broad significance, interdisciplinary appeal, and rigor.

In practice, this means Science Advances is not just a journal with a high impact factor. It's a journal that asks whether your work matters beyond your field. That editorial philosophy shapes everything from desk rejection decisions to reviewer selection.

Internationally, the AAAS brand is universally recognized. Unlike some journals where brand matters primarily in specific countries or regions, AAAS / Science is understood as a mark of quality across virtually all scientific communities. That recognition translates directly when hiring committees or grant reviewers see Science Advances on a CV.

The Impact Factor: 11.7 (2023) and 12.5 (2024)

The impact factor for Science Advances was 11.7 in 2023 and has since recovered to 12.5 in 2024. The journal peaked at 15.0 in 2021 during the COVID citation surge and then fell alongside most multidisciplinary journals as citation inflation normalized.

Here's how it stacks up against direct competitors:

The 12.5 puts Science Advances clearly in the high-impact tier, behind Nature Communications but ahead of PNAS and most field-specific journals.

One important note: the 5-year impact factor for Science Advances sits around 14.1, which better captures the journal's long-term citation performance than the two-year figure that had a down year in 2023. For journals with sustained citation profiles, the 5-year figure is often more informative.

Is It More Selective Than It Looks?

Yes, and this surprises many researchers.

The overall acceptance rate at Science Advances is around 18-20%, which sounds moderately selective. But the editorial desk rejection rate is roughly ~40%. Among papers that actually go to peer review, acceptance is around 10%.

That 10% post-review acceptance rate is tighter than many researchers expect from a journal in this IF range. It makes Science Advances harder to get into than Nature Communications (which has a higher IF but a higher effective acceptance rate) and much harder than PNAS on a post-review basis.

What does this mean practically? If your paper gets sent to external review at Science Advances, you've passed a meaningful editorial filter. The odds at that point are reasonable.

What Gets Desk Rejected

The desk rejection pattern is predictable once you understand the editorial philosophy:

• Papers with significance to one discipline only (even excellent single-field papers)
• Work that doesn't articulate why it matters beyond the authors' community
• Incremental advances that confirm rather than break new ground
• Papers from authors who don't make the interdisciplinary appeal explicit in the cover letter

The last point is practical and fixable. A strong cover letter that frames the work in terms of broader significance can change an editor's desk rejection to a peer review routing. This isn't gaming the system - it's communicating accurately what your work offers to a broad readership.

Science Advances vs. PNAS: The Real Comparison

This is the question most researchers in life sciences, chemistry, and physics face when choosing between the two.

Impact factor: Science Advances wins (12.5 vs 9.1). But both are strong numbers.

Brand: Different flavors. PNAS has deeper historical prestige in the US research community. AAAS / Science Advances has arguably stronger international recognition, especially in Asia and Europe.

Cost: PNAS is significantly cheaper - $1,950 base for non-member institutions, less for members. Science Advances is $5,000. If you're paying out-of-pocket or your institution doesn't have an AAAS deal, this is a meaningful difference.

Process: PNAS requires a Significance Statement (a 120-word plain-language summary of why the work matters), which some researchers find useful and others find annoying. Science Advances doesn't require this but expects the significance to be evident in the abstract and cover letter.

Speed: Science Advances generally gives faster first decisions, often within 21-28 days compared to PNAS's typical 14-day desk review plus additional time for peer review routing.

For most purposes, the choice comes down to cost and which brand your field recognizes more. If your institution covers both APCs equally, Science Advances' higher IF gives a marginal edge.

[Science Advances vs. Nature Communications](/blog/nature-communications-vs-science-advances)

This is the other major comparison. If you have a strong interdisciplinary paper, both journals are plausible targets.

Nature Communications has a higher IF (15.7 vs 12.5). It publishes three times as many papers (roughly 9,000 vs 3,500 per year). It's more expensive (€5,390 vs €5,390).

Science Advances is more selective by effective post-review acceptance rate. The AAAS brand is different from the Springer Nature brand - neither is clearly superior globally.

One practical point: Nature Communications is faster at desk rejection decisions (7-10 days vs 21-28 days for Science Advances). If you want a quick signal on fit before committing to a longer review, Nature Communications gives you that faster.

The Open Access Advantage

Both Science Advances and Nature Communications are fully open access. This matters for visibility.

Open access papers get read more, cited more, and reach researchers in institutions without journal subscriptions. For work with broad significance - which is exactly what Science Advances publishes - open access amplifies the impact rather than just being a box-checking exercise.

For researchers funded by agencies with open access mandates (NIH, Wellcome Trust, many European funders), Science Advances is a natural fit that satisfies both the OA requirement and the prestige expectation.

Who Does Well at Science Advances

Looking at actual published output:

• Physicists and chemists with biologically or environmentally relevant applications
• Computational researchers developing methods with broad applicability
• Life scientists with strong mechanistic findings that extend beyond one model system
• Social scientists with quantitative methods and large datasets
• Materials scientists with clear real-world implications

What these papers have in common: they're easy to pitch to a broad scientific audience. The "so what" question answers itself when a physicist explains a biological phenomenon or when a chemist develops a new imaging technique that works across biology, medicine, and materials.

If you have to work hard to explain why a non-specialist should care about your paper, Science Advances is probably not the right target. The interdisciplinary significance should be genuine, not forced.

Submitting to Science Advances: Practical Notes

The submission process is straightforward via the AAAS editorial manager. A few things to know:

Cover letters matter more here than at most journals. Write explicitly about why the work matters to scientists outside your subfield.

Figure quality is scrutinized. Science Advances publishes papers that non-specialists read, so visual clarity and figure accessibility matter in review.

If you get desk rejected, the editor's feedback often contains useful information about the framing gap. Don't ignore it.

How Science Advances Uses External Editors

Science Advances employs a team of in-house editors with research backgrounds, but it also uses a network of external editors: researchers at universities who serve part-time in an editorial capacity. This is common across AAAS journals.

External editors handle specific subfields and bring genuine scientific expertise to peer review routing and initial screening. When you submit to Science Advances, there's a real chance your paper lands with an editor who has published in your area.

This has practical implications:

• Write the cover letter for a scientist, not just an administrator. External editors can evaluate your claims at a technical level, so technical vagueness in the cover letter reads as a red flag, not just a communication problem.
• Reviewer suggestions are taken seriously. Science Advances accepts reviewer suggestions from authors. Suggesting 3-5 specific researchers who could evaluate the interdisciplinary scope of your paper is worthwhile.
• The appeal process is real. If you receive a rejection after review that you believe missed a key aspect of your work, Science Advances does handle formal appeals. It's not common for them to succeed, but the process exists.

The Bottom Line

Science Advances is a genuinely good journal. The AAAS brand is real, the peer review is rigorous, the impact factor is strong, and the open-access model maximizes your work's visibility.

It's not for everyone. Single-discipline work, even excellent work, gets desk rejected. The $5,000 APC is a barrier without institutional coverage. And it's more selective than its overall acceptance rate suggests.

But for interdisciplinary work with clear broad significance, it's one of the best open-access destinations available.

See the full journal profile for Science Advances for submission specifics and a breakdown of published paper types.

Sources

• Clarivate Journal Citation Reports 2025
• AAAS Science Advances author guidelines: advances.sciencemag.org
• Science Advances impact factor history
• Science Advances submission guide
• Nature Communications vs Science Advances comparison
• Full Science Advances journal profile

See also

• Science Advances Submission Process (2026)
• Science Advances Acceptance Rate
• Nature Communications vs Science Advances 2026