Nature Communications vs PLoS One: Which Should You Submit To?

Nature Communications has an impact factor of 15.7 (2024 JCR), while PLoS One is 2.6 (2024 JCR). Nature Communications is 6.0 times higher. Nature Communications ranks 10th among multidisciplinary journals; PLoS One ranks 44th. This is a significant prestige gap. Nature Communications is top-tier; PLoS One is a mid-tier open-access journal. Articles in Nature Communications are cited roughly 6 times more frequently on average.

For career impact: publishing in Nature Communications strengthens your CV meaningfully and carries weight in grant proposals and hiring decisions. Publishing in PLoS One is a legitimate publication but carries less prestige. At the early-career stage, this gap matters significantly.

Nature Communications accepts high-quality research with significant findings and broad interest within the scientific community. The editorial question is: "Does this represent important research that multiple research communities will care about?" Approximately 70-75% of submissions are rejected.

PLoS One has a fundamentally different mission. The journal explicitly uses "research soundness" as the sole criterion, not significance or novelty. PLoS One asks: "Is this scientifically rigorous and technically sound?" A paper can be published in PLoS One even if it's incremental, replicative, narrow, or routine—as long as the science is correct. The journal's philosophy is to publish all scientifically valid research. Approximately 25% of submissions are rejected (mostly for methodological flaws).

In practice: a well-executed observational study with limited novelty might be rejected by Nature Communications as insufficiently significant and accepted by PLoS One without hesitation. A methodologically rigorous investigation of a narrow question would fit PLoS One perfectly but might not meet Nature Communications' significance bar. A technique validation study—important but routine—belongs in PLoS One.

Both journals are multidisciplinary and accept research across all sciences: biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, engineering, geology, computer science, and more. There's no disciplinary preference at either journal. The difference is entirely in the significance and novelty requirements.

Nature Communications: ~20% acceptance rate in current Manusights canonical data. Selective; most papers are rejected.

PLoS One: ~75%+ acceptance rate. Very inclusive; most papers are accepted if scientifically sound.

This is a dramatic difference. Your odds of publication at PLoS One are roughly 2.5-3 times higher than at Nature Communications. PLoS One accepts almost all sound research; Nature Communications accepts only significant research.

Nature Communications: Desk decision within 2-3 weeks. Peer review typically 4-8 weeks. Total: 2-3 months on average.

PLoS One: Desk decision within 1 week. Peer review typically 4-6 weeks. Total: 1.5-2 months on average. PLoS One is slightly faster overall, though the difference is modest (2-4 weeks).

Both journals have reasonable timelines. PLoS One is marginally faster.

Nature Communications: No strict length limit. Articles typically 8-12 pages. Standard research article format.

PLoS One: No strict length limit. Articles range widely (6-20+ pages). PLoS One is equally flexible.

Both journals accommodate various paper lengths. Format is not a differentiating factor.

Nature Communications: Full open access. APC is approximately $7,000–7,500 (among the highest in the industry).

PLoS One: Full open access. APC is approximately $1,500–1,700 (significantly cheaper than Nature Communications).

PLoS One is substantially more economical (roughly one-fifth the cost of Nature Communications). If budget is a constraint, PLoS One is far more accessible. Both provide full open access, so there's no difference in reader accessibility to your work.

Nature Communications editors are selective gatekeepers. They assess papers for significance and potential broad impact. Rejection at the desk stage is common. Peer review is rigorous and demanding.

PLoS One editors focus on methods and technical soundness. They send most papers to peer review. The review process checks correctness and rigor, not significance. Reviewer feedback tends to be constructive and focused on scientific accuracy.

Significant research with broad appeal: Nature Communications is the right target. Your work should have impact across multiple research communities. You have decent odds (25-30%) and much higher prestige upon publication. Choose Nature Communications if career impact and citations matter.

Solid, methodologically sound research lacking novelty or broad significance: PLoS One is perfect. Nature Communications will likely reject this as insufficiently significant. PLoS One will accept it readily (75%+ odds) and ensure it reaches a wide open-access audience.

Observational study, replication, validation, or narrow specialization: PLoS One. These papers often don't meet significance thresholds for Nature Communications but are valuable scientific contributions. PLoS One explicitly welcomes them.

Budget constraint: PLoS One is substantially cheaper ($1,500–1,700 vs $7,000–7,500). If cost is a significant factor, PLoS One is far more accessible.

Early-career researcher with limited publications: Nature Communications if you believe the work is significant and you need high-impact publications. PLoS One if you want to quickly build a publication record with lower risk and cost.

Incremental or technical advance: PLoS One is the natural home. Nature Communications judges by significance standards your work may not meet. PLoS One values methodological rigor and will publish solid technical advances.

Common approach: If your work is potentially significant, try Nature Communications first. The prestige is worth the effort. If Nature Communications rejects with feedback suggesting the work is sound but insufficiently novel or broadly interesting, submit to PLoS One. You'll likely be accepted, and the open-access visibility still provides good dissemination.

Alternatively, if you're confident the work is solid but narrow, go directly to PLoS One. You'll be published faster, with lower cost, and without the rejection risk. You can pursue higher-impact venues for your next paper.

Both journals accept preprints. If you're uncertain which venue to choose, post on arXiv or bioRxiv first. This gets your work visible while you decide on journal strategy. You can then pursue Nature Communications (with higher prestige risk) or PLoS One (with higher publication certainty).

Nature Communications and PLoS One are both open-access journals serving vastly different missions. Nature Communications is high-impact and selective, requiring significant research with broad appeal. PLoS One is inclusive and accepting, valuing research soundness over significance. Nature Communications is better for career advancement and citations; PLoS One is better for guaranteed publication, cost efficiency, and disseminating valuable but specialized research.

Neither choice is "settling." Nature Communications represents prestige; PLoS One represents accessibility and inclusivity in science. Choose based on your paper's significance, your career needs, and your budget. Publishing in PLoS One is a legitimate, peer-reviewed achievement that advances science and ensures your work reaches a wide open-access audience.