Nature Communications vs Science Advances: Which Should You Submit To?

Nature Communications publishes high-quality work across biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences. "Multidisciplinary" here means wide scope: strong papers within individual disciplines are welcome. You don't need to cross disciplinary lines to publish here.

Science Advances leans harder on the interdisciplinary requirement. AAAS was founded to advance science broadly, and Science Advances reflects that mission. Editors specifically value work that bridges fields or has implications beyond its home discipline. A strong advance within one specialty is a weaker fit for Science Advances than for Nature Communications.

This distinction is subtle but consequential. If your paper advances structural biology within that field, Nature Communications is the right call. If it connects structural biology to drug discovery or materials science in a meaningful new way, Science Advances is worth considering despite the lower IF.

Nature Communications (~8%) of papers that reach review but desk rejects ~40% of all submissions.

Science Advances accepts roughly 18-22% of papers at review but desk rejects 50-60% of all submissions.

Overall acceptance from all submissions:

• Nature Communications: ~12-15%
• Science Advances: ~10%

The gap narrows significantly once you account for desk rejections. Both are genuinely competitive. Science Advances is not obviously easier, and the lower IF doesn't signal lower standards.

Nature Communications: technical rigor, advance beyond existing literature, broad disciplinary appeal. Interdisciplinary framing is valued but not required.

Science Advances: cross-disciplinary or broad scientific significance is closer to a requirement. Papers with a strong within-field contribution but no clear implications outside the specialty are regularly desk rejected. The editorial bar is more like PNAS than like Nature Communications.

Both use professional editors and 2-3 external reviewers. Both conduct substantive multi-round review.

Nature Communications publishes peer review reports alongside papers by default (since 2016). Reviewers can opt into attribution. Authors can opt out. First revisions commonly ask for new experiments or additional analyses.

Science Advances doesn't publish peer review reports. Reviews are confidential. AAAS has a smaller reviewer pool for highly specialized interdisciplinary work, which can slow turnaround on specialized papers.

Nature Communications: €5,390

Springer Nature significant agreements cover this cost at hundreds of institutions worldwide. Check the Springer Nature agreement finder. One of the most widely available institutional agreements in academic publishing.

Science Advances: $5,000 USD

AASS institutional agreements exist but are less widespread. AAAS member discount available. If neither institution has coverage, Science Advances saves you $1,290 out of pocket.

If your institution has a Springer Nature agreement, Nature Communications may be cheaper in practice than Science Advances.

Choose Nature Communications if:

• Your paper is a strong advance within one discipline, not necessarily crossing into others
• Your institution has a Springer Nature significant agreement
• Your field is biology, chemistry, physics, or earth sciences with an established Nature Communications readership
• You want peer review reports published (transparent peer review)
• The higher IF matters for your funding or evaluation criteria

Choose Science Advances if:

• Your work genuinely crosses disciplinary lines: computational + experimental, basic + translational, physical sciences + biology
• Your institution has AAAS coverage but not Springer Nature coverage
• AAAS (Science family) carries particular prestige in your field
• The stricter selectivity and AAAS brand matter more to you than the IF difference

When it's a toss-up:

For most strong multidisciplinary biology papers, Nature Communications is the better initial target (higher IF, broader scope). Try Nature Communications first. If rejected, Science Advances remains an option if you can strengthen the cross-disciplinary angle in the resubmission.

The right choice often comes down to discipline:

Exception: If your work directly bridges physical and biological sciences - for example, a biophysics or synthetic biology study - Science Advances is worth targeting first despite the lower IF, because the AAAS editorial team actively values that crossover.

Before submitting, a NComms vs Science Advances fit check can confirm which journal's editorial identity better fits your paper's scope and significance level.

Choose Nature Communications if:

• Your institution covers the APC (check before submitting)
• You're in biology, chemistry, or physics (NC is particularly strong in these areas)
• The IF difference matters for your hiring timeline or grant metrics

Choose Science Advances if:

• You're paying out-of-pocket and the APC is a constraint
• You're in a physical or earth sciences field (SA has strong representation here)
• You want a slightly faster desk decision and similar peer review rigor

The prestige gap is real but narrowing. Nature Communications' IF of 15.7 vs. Science Advances' 12.5 is meaningful at institutions that weight IF heavily. At institutions that weight journal prestige by reputation rather than raw IF, the gap is smaller , AAAS backing carries significant brand recognition.

Both journals desk-reject most submissions. The reasons are similar:

• Papers that aren't genuinely multidisciplinary in scope or appeal (single-discipline work that belongs in a field-specific journal)
• Incremental advances in already well-covered areas without a clear leap forward
• Papers where the significance claim in the abstract doesn't match the evidence presented
• Studies that are technically sound but primarily of interest to narrow specialists

The key difference: Nature Communications editors are generally faster to redirect papers to other Springer Nature journals (SREP, Communications Biology, etc.) rather than reject outright. Science Advances typically returns a clean reject if the paper doesn't fit, with suggestions to try other journals.

Before targeting Nature Communications, check whether your institution has a Springer Nature major Agreement that covers the APC. Many large research universities in the US, EU, and UK have these agreements, which means the APC is fully or substantially covered at no direct cost to the author.

If you're unsure, check the Springer Nature author guidelines or contact your library's open access team. Discovering post-acceptance that your APC isn't covered is an expensive surprise.

If you've read this far and still aren't sure, here's the practical tiebreaker.

Default to Nature Communications if:

• The paper is a strong within-discipline advance (you don't need to argue cross-field relevance)
• Your institution covers the €5,390 APC through a Springer Nature agreement
• The IF gap (15.7 vs 12.5) matters for your next grant or tenure review

Default to Science Advances if:

• The paper genuinely bridges two or more fields, and the bridge is the point, not an afterthought
• You're paying out-of-pocket and the ~$3,000 APC savings matters ($4,500 vs ~$7,350)
• AAAS brand recognition carries more weight in your field than the Springer Nature name

When it's truly 50/50: Submit to Nature Communications first. The higher IF, larger readership, and transparent peer review give you more upside. If NatComms says no, the cross-disciplinary reframe for Science Advances is usually easier than going the other direction.

Last verified: JCR 2024 release (June 2025), Nature Communications IF 15.7, JCI 3.34, Q1, rank 10/135 in Multidisciplinary Sciences. Science Advances IF 12.5, JCI 2.82, Q1, rank 12/135 in Multidisciplinary Sciences.