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 publishes no acceptance rate and no desk-rejection rate. Figures you see for it elsewhere are outside estimates, not journal data.

Science Advances publishes its numbers: for 2025 research articles, reports and research resources, AAAS reports 35,831 submissions, a review rate of 16.4% (the share of manuscripts externally reviewed) and an accept rate of 8.8%.

Overall acceptance from all submissions:

• Nature Communications: no published rate

• Science Advances: 8.8% (2025)

Because Nature Communications publishes no rate, the two cannot be ranked on official figures. 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.

Nature Communications decisions are made by full-time professional editors, who are PhD-level scientists. Science Advances submissions are evaluated by an editorial board of active research scientists, supported by in-house professional editorial staff. Nature Communications sends papers to typically two or three reviewers, sometimes more, and Science Advances requires a minimum of two reviewers for any published paper. Both conduct substantive multi-round review.

Nature Communications publishes reviewer comments and author rebuttal letters alongside all original research articles submitted on or after 1 November 2022; authors could opt out for earlier submissions, and the scheme began for submissions from January 2016. Reviewers can opt into attribution by signing their comments. 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: $7,350 / EUR 6,150 / GBP 5,490

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: $5,450 USD

AAAS institutional agreements exist but are less widespread. AAAS member discount available. If neither institution has coverage, Science Advances saves you roughly $1,900 out of pocket.

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

Start with the paper's shape, not the brand. If the manuscript is a strong single-discipline advance, Nature Communications is usually the cleaner first read. If the manuscript genuinely needs readers from multiple fields to see the contribution, Science Advances may be the stronger fit.

The useful alternative is not always the other journal. If the work is a strong specialty paper with limited cross-field consequence, a focused field journal may be a better conversion path than either broad OA venue.

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 AAAS brand matters 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 18.1 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.

Science Advances reports that only 16.4% of 2025 submissions were externally reviewed; Nature Communications publishes no desk-rejection rate. The reasons for desk rejection are similar:

• Papers that miss the journal's scope: at Science Advances, work that isn't genuinely multidisciplinary in appeal (single-discipline work that belongs in a field-specific journal); at Nature Communications, work that isn't an important advance of significance to specialists within its field

• 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.

Across Manusights submission reviews for manuscripts choosing between Nature Communications and Science Advances, we observe one specific risk pattern more than any other: authors use "multidisciplinary" as a prestige label instead of proving which readership actually needs the paper.

For Nature Communications, the stronger package usually makes the within-field advance obvious and then shows why the result travels beyond a narrow specialist group. For Science Advances, the stronger package makes the field bridge itself unavoidable. In practice, manuscripts that merely add an interdisciplinary sentence to the abstract still read as single-discipline papers, and that is where Science Advances fit becomes weaker even when the science is strong.

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 $7,350 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 roughly $1,900 APC savings matters ($5,450 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: 2026 JCR release (June 2025), Nature Communications IF 18.1, JCI 3.34, Q1, rank 10/135 in Multidisciplinary Sciences. Science Advances IF 13.9, JCI 2.82, Q1, rank 12/135 in Multidisciplinary Sciences.

• Nature Communications JIF 2026

• Science Advances Submission Process

• Is Nature Communications a Good Journal?