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

Nature Communications and Science Advances compete for the same type of paper: high-quality, open-access, multidisciplinary research that clears the high-impact bar but doesn't reach the extreme threshold of Nature, Science, or Cell.

They are not interchangeable. The editorial philosophies differ, the selectivity profiles differ, and the communities that read each journal differ enough that the right choice for your paper depends on what the paper actually is.

The key numbers

Nature Communications publishes roughly 3x more papers per year. That volume difference affects selectivity, turnaround time, and the breadth of topics covered.

Editorial philosophy: broad multidisciplinary vs. selective interdisciplinary

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.

Acceptance rate: what you're actually competing against

Nature Communications accepts 20-25% 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.

What desk editors look for

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.

Peer review and revision

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.

APC and institutional coverage

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.

Which should you choose?

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.

Which field are you in?

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.

Related resources

• Nature Communications journal guide: IF 15.7, editorial scope, APC, review timeline
• Nature Communications impact factor guide: where Nature Communications ranks, what 15.7 means for your submission
• Science Advances impact factor guide: IF 12.5, AAAS portfolio context
• PNAS journal guide: IF 9.1, for comparison with the AAAS flagship journal
• How to choose the right journal: broader journal selection framework
• Impact factor data from Clarivate Journal Citation Reports

Best for

• Authors deciding between these two venues for an active manuscript this month
• Labs that need a practical trade-off across fit, timeline, cost, and editorial bar
• Early-career researchers who need a realistic first-choice and backup choice

Not best for

• Choosing a journal from impact factor alone without checking scope fit
• Submitting before methods, controls, and framing match recent accepted papers
• Treating this comparison as a guarantee of acceptance at either journal

Sources

• Journal official submission and author guidelines
• Author experience data from SciRev and journal tracker communities
• Editorial policies published on journal homepage
• Pre-Submission Checklist , 25-point audit before you submit

IF and Key Stats Compared

The APC difference is the biggest practical factor for most authors. Nature Communications requires €5,390 unless you have institutional coverage or an APC waiver. Science Advances charges nothing. For authors at institutions without Springer Nature agreements, this is often the deciding factor.

How to Decide Between Them

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.

What Both Journals Reject at the Desk

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.

APC Waiver and Institutional Access

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.

The Bottom Line

Nature Communications and Science Advances both serve authors who need open-access publication in a high-IF multidisciplinary journal. The split comes down to APC budget and field emphasis. NC is broader and more expensive; SA is AAAS-backed and free to publish but slightly lower IF. Both deserve a well-prepared manuscript before submission.

See also

• Nature Communications Impact Factor 2026
• Science Advances Submission Process
• Is Nature Communications a Good Journal?