Nature Communications Impact Factor 2026: Acceptance Rate, Review Time, and Whether the APC Is Worth It

Nature Communications' impact factor is 15.7 in 2024. That puts it at the top of the open-access multidisciplinary journal tier: higher than Science Advances, PLOS Biology, PNAS, and every other fully open-access generalist journal. Around 50,000 manuscripts are submitted every year.

If you're deciding whether to submit, here's the full picture: what the IF actually measures for this type of journal, how the acceptance rate breaks down, what the review timeline looks like, and when Nature Communications is the right choice vs when a different journal serves you better.

Nature Communications Impact Factor: Year by Year

The CiteScore (Scopus 4-year window) is 21.6 in 2024: significantly higher than the JCR IF. Nature Communications articles accumulate citations over a longer period than the 2-year JCR window captures, so the CiteScore gives a more accurate picture of how the journal's articles actually perform.

The 2021 spike to 17.7 was real and well-documented. COVID-era papers generated unusually high cross-disciplinary citations, and Nature Communications: with its broad scope: benefited more than most. The IF settled back to the 14-16 range from 2022 onward and has been stable there.

Why the IF Is Harder to Read for a Multidisciplinary Journal

Nature Communications publishes work across all of biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, and clinical medicine. That breadth makes the IF harder to interpret than a specialty journal's number.

A specialty journal with an IF of 10 in immunology means immunologists are citing it heavily: the number directly reflects prestige in that specific field. Nature Communications' IF of 15.7 is averaged across every scientific discipline. A structural biology paper and an atmospheric chemistry paper sit in the same denominator.

This cuts both ways:

It can inflate the IF relative to narrow-scope journals, because papers that bridge multiple fields get cited by multiple communities.

It can understate field-specific prestige in fields that have a dominant specialty journal. In neuroscience, Neuron carries more prestige than Nature Communications despite Nature Communications' higher IF. In immunology, Immunity does. In cell biology, Cell Reports or Cell are the reference points. Nature Communications is strongest as a prestige signal for interdisciplinary work that doesn't belong to any single field.

How Nature Communications Compares to Alternatives

A few things are worth noting:

• Science Advances is more selective despite lower IF. It accepts roughly 10% of submissions vs Nature Communications' 20%. AAAS editors can afford to be choosy because of the brand.
• PNAS is dramatically cheaper. $1,380 vs ~€5,390 USD, with a comparable reputation in many fields. If APC is a real constraint, PNAS is worth serious consideration.
• Cell Reports' CiteScore (15.1) is close to Nature Communications (21.6) despite a much lower JCR IF. For biology-focused work, the prestige gap is real but smaller than the IF numbers suggest.
• Nature Communications' CiteScore (21.6) is the strongest signal of how its articles actually perform over time: more useful than the JCR IF when comparing across journal types.

What the 20% Acceptance Rate Actually Means

20% overall sounds accessible. In practice it's more compressed than that number suggests.

Nature Communications desk-rejects a significant portion of submissions without peer review. Desk rejection decisions come in about 9 days and are based on three things:

1. Significance beyond a single field: the key filter. Does this advance science in a way that readers across disciplines would recognize?
2. Novelty and conceptual advance: is there a new principle, mechanism, or finding, or is this an incremental extension of known work?
3. Technical credibility at a glance: do the methods and conclusions hold up under brief editorial scrutiny?

If your paper clears the desk, your odds improve substantially. Papers that reach peer review at Nature Communications accept at roughly a 35-40% rate. The desk is where most papers die.

The acceptance rate also varies by field. Computational biology, genomics, and earth sciences tend to do well at Nature Communications because multidisciplinary appeal is built into those fields. Highly specialist wet-lab biology often struggles unless the broader significance is made explicit: Cell Press journals are the default prestige target in that space.

The Review Timeline

Desk decision: ~9 days median. One of the faster desk timelines among high-IF journals (Nature and Cell can take 3-4 weeks). You'll know quickly whether to pivot.

Peer review: 6-8 weeks to first decision once reviewers are assigned. Nature Communications has a large reviewer pool, and most delays come from reviewer availability rather than editorial bottlenecks.

Revision: Major revisions typically allow 6 months. Minor revisions 6-8 weeks. The journal allows one major revision round in most cases.

Submission to acceptance: For papers that ultimately get accepted, the realistic timeline is 4-7 months total.

If you're on a grant deadline, job application cycle, or conference timeline, the 9-day desk decision is genuinely useful. A fast no is better than a slow maybe.

The APC: When It's Worth It and How to Reduce It

€5,390 (~$5,890 USD) is a real cost. Here's how to think about it:

Check funder requirements first. NIH, Wellcome Trust, ERC, UKRI, and many national funders either mandate open-access publication or provide APC coverage as part of grants. If your funding requires open access, the APC may already be covered.

Check your institution's Springer Nature agreement. Springer Nature has read-and-publish agreements with hundreds of universities and research institutions. Under these agreements, corresponding authors at participating institutions can publish open access at no direct cost. Check with your library before paying out of pocket.

Subscription option. Nature Communications now offers authors the ability to publish behind a subscription paywall rather than open access, which eliminates the APC. This is a newer option and worth knowing about if APC coverage isn't available.

Waiver program. Limited fee waivers exist for researchers at institutions in lower-income countries. Not widely advertised, but available on request.

For the full APC breakdown: including which funders cover it, how to apply for institutional discounts, and whether open access actually increases citations: see the Nature Communications APC guide.

Should You Submit to Nature Communications?

The question isn't whether the IF is high enough. It's whether this is the right journal for this specific paper.

Submit to Nature Communications if:

• Your work genuinely crosses two or more scientific fields and the significance is visible to scientists outside your immediate area
• You've been rejected from Nature, Science, or Cell with encouraging comments: Nature Communications is the natural next step in the Springer Nature portfolio
• Your funder or institution covers the APC
• Speed of desk decision matters (fastest in its tier at 9 days)
• You want broad open-access visibility across fields, not just within your field

Consider alternatives if:

• Your work fits a strong specialty journal with a comparable IF in your field: that journal's audience cares more specifically about your result
• APC is a real constraint: PNAS at $1,380 carries comparable prestige in most fields at a fraction of the cost
• Your work is specifically cell biology or immunology-focused: Cell Press titles are the strategic priority in those fields
• Your paper was rejected from a specialty journal and you're looking for a "safe" backup: that's not what Nature Communications is for, and editors can tell

What Editors at Nature Communications Are Looking For

Nature Communications editors give the same answer consistently when asked what separates papers that get through from papers that don't: significance that readers outside your field would recognize.

Not technical quality. Not novelty in a narrow specialist sense. The specific kind of significance where a cell biologist, a structural biologist, and a chemist all immediately understand why it matters.

The papers that fail at the desk are usually technically fine. They're rejected because the significance is only visible to people who work on the same protein, the same organism, or the same narrow question. That paper belongs in a specialty journal: even a highly prestigious one: not at Nature Communications.

When writing your cover letter and framing your introduction, answer this question explicitly: why should someone who doesn't work in your specific area care about this finding? If you can answer it in two sentences, you're in the right place. If you can't, target a journal where field-specific significance is the standard.

For the complete Nature Communications submission guide: cover letter format, figure requirements, format transfer from the Nature journal family, and reviewer response strategy: see the Nature Communications journal page. For a full breakdown of the APC, waiver options, and institutional agreements, see the Nature Communications APC guide.

Sources and further reading

Impact factor data sourced from Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (released June 2025). Submission guidelines at the Nature Communications author instructions.

See our full Nature Communications journal guide for editorial scope, desk rejection rates, and APC details. For manuscript strategy before you submit, see our avoid desk rejection service.

2026 Freshness Check: What Changed This Year

The headline number (15.7) hasn't moved dramatically, but author behavior around Nature Communications has shifted in 2026 for one reason: APC pressure. Labs without institutional agreements are increasingly choosing Science Advances or strong field journals when the IF gap is small.

In practice, the submission decision now depends on one quick check: does your institution cover the APC? If yes, Nature Communications remains a strong target for cross-disciplinary work. If no, the economics often push solid papers toward lower-cost venues even when the editorial fit is good.

For first-time submitters, that means journal choice is no longer just prestige plus scope. It's prestige plus scope plus funding reality.

The Bottom Line

Nature Communications' IF of 15.7 sits in a useful band , high enough to matter for hiring committees, low enough that strong multidisciplinary work has a real shot. The APC is the more important variable for many authors. If you're weighing whether NC makes sense for your paper, a pre-submission diagnostic can tell you where your manuscript stands against what the editors actually screen for.

See also

• Nature Communications submission process guide
• Nature Communications vs PNAS
• Nature Communications vs Science Advances
• Is Nature Communications a good journal?
• Nature Medicine impact factor
• Nature journal impact factor
• Nature Biotechnology impact factor
• Nature Biotechnology submission guide

Related Resources

• Acceptance rates for 50+ journals
• Nature family journals compared
• Nature Communications vs PNAS - the comparison most researchers face
• Nature Communications vs Science Advances