Nature Reviews Cancer APC and Open Access: The Invite-Only Journal with a $12,850 Price Tag

Nature Reviews Cancer operates differently from almost every other journal researchers encounter. The editorial team commissions the vast majority of content. The process works like this:

1. The editors identify a topic where the field needs a definitive synthesis.

1. They approach one or more established researchers with a commission, often including a suggested scope and word count.

1. The invited author writes a detailed outline, which the editors review and refine.

1. The full review is written, peer-reviewed (yes, even invited reviews are refereed), and revised.

Unsolicited proposals are technically accepted. You can contact the editors with a pitch, and they'll consider it. But the acceptance rate for unsolicited proposals is very low. The editors have their own editorial calendar and topic priorities. If your proposal overlaps with something they've already commissioned, it won't move forward.

This model means that for most oncology researchers, the APC question is academic. You can't decide to submit here the way you'd submit to Cancer Research or Clinical Cancer Research. The journal has to want your review first.

The journal focuses exclusively on review-format articles across cancer biology and clinical oncology:

• Reviews: Long-form synthesis articles (5,000-8,000 words) covering a defined area of cancer research. These are the journal's core product.

• Perspectives: Shorter opinion pieces on emerging topics, controversies, or field directions.

• Technical Reviews: Deep dives into methodologies, model systems, or technologies used in cancer research.

• Roadmaps: Forward-looking articles that lay out research priorities for a subfield.

Nature Reviews Cancer doesn't publish original data. There are no clinical trials, no sequencing studies, no mouse experiments. Every article is a synthesis of existing literature with expert interpretation. The journal published roughly 80-100 articles in 2024. Its JIF of approximately 66 is the highest of any oncology journal, driven by the high citation rates that authoritative reviews attract.

Nature Reviews Cancer is hybrid. The two routes:

1. Subscription track (default, $0): Published behind the Springer Nature paywall. Institutional subscribers have access. No cost to the author.

1. Gold OA track ($12,850): Immediate free access for all readers under a Creative Commons license.

Review articles in Nature Reviews Cancer accumulate enormous readership over years. A definitive review on, say, tumor immunology or DNA damage response will be cited and read for a decade. The subscription track still delivers this readership, because virtually every cancer research institution subscribes to Springer Nature packages.

That said, open access reviews have a broader reach. Clinicians, patients, science journalists, and policymakers can access them directly. For review articles that aim to influence clinical practice or policy, OA has tangible benefits beyond citation counts.

Like all Nature Research titles, Nature Reviews Cancer is covered by Springer Nature's extensive Read & Publish network:

Given that Nature Reviews Cancer commissions reviews from leading cancer researchers, and leading cancer researchers tend to work at well-funded institutions in countries with strong R&P agreements, the practical APC burden is minimal for most authors. A professor at the Francis Crick Institute, DKFZ, or Memorial Sloan Kettering is almost certainly covered.

The US gap remains relevant. Without a national Springer Nature deal, US researchers at institutions without individual agreements face the full $12,850. Major cancer centers like MD Anderson, Dana-Farber, and Fred Hutch typically have institutional arrangements, but check with your library to confirm.

Springer Nature's standard waiver framework applies:

• Full waiver: Corresponding authors at institutions in Research4Life Group A countries (low-income nations).

• 50% discount: Group B countries (lower-middle-income nations).

• Hardship waivers: Case-by-case consideration for authors who can demonstrate financial need.

For a journal that primarily invites established experts, waivers are less frequently needed than for broad-scope research journals. But the policy exists, and it applies equally to Nature Reviews Cancer.

Review articles present an interesting funder compliance wrinkle. Many funders require OA for research they fund, but review articles don't always report funded research directly. If you write a review that doesn't present work from a specific grant, funder OA mandates may not apply. Check your funder's specific language about review articles.

For NIH-funded authors, the green OA route works: publish via subscription, then deposit the accepted manuscript in PubMed Central after a 6-month embargo. Nature Reviews Cancer's embargo is shorter than most Elsevier journals (12 months), making the free route more practical.

Nature Reviews Cancer doesn't charge submission fees, page fees, or figure charges. But keep these in mind:

• Tax: EU VAT of 15-25% applies on top of the APC in many jurisdictions. The $12,850 APC can become $14,800-$16,000 in practice.

• Time investment: Writing a commissioned review for Nature Reviews Cancer is a significant undertaking. Expect 3-6 months of literature synthesis, writing, and revision. The opportunity cost of senior researcher time is the real expense, not the APC.

• Figure preparation: High-quality schematic figures are expected. Many authors commission professional scientific illustrations at $300-$1,000 per figure. A typical review has 4-8 figures.

• Revision cycles: The editorial team provides detailed feedback, and revisions can be extensive. Two rounds of revision are common.

If Nature Reviews Cancer's editors invite you to write a review:

1. Check institutional coverage first. If your institution has a Springer Nature Read & Publish deal, the APC is covered automatically. Choose OA.

1. Funder mandates apply? Review articles may or may not fall under funder OA mandates. Clarify this before making your decision.

1. NIH-funded, no mandate for reviews? Publish via subscription (free). Deposit in PMC after 6 months if needed.

1. No deal, no mandate? Publish via subscription. The journal's subscriber base covers every major cancer research institution globally.

If you're considering writing an unsolicited proposal, focus on identifying a gap that the journal hasn't recently covered. Check the journal's table of contents for the past two years to avoid overlap with recent commissions.

Whether you're preparing a commissioned review or an original research manuscript for submission to oncology journals, getting the structure, argumentation, and positioning right matters. Nature Reviews Cancer submission readiness check to identify gaps before you invest months of writing time.

For the latest fee schedule and author guidelines, check Springer Nature's official page for Nature Reviews Cancer.

Method note: this page was reviewed against Springer Nature open-access pages, Nature Reviews journal pages, JCR context, invitation/scope notes, and Manusights oncology review-article screening patterns. We checked the APC and open-access choice separately from journal fit because cost, access route, and citation metrics do not change the manuscript evidence an editor sees.

In our audit of the 16 metric reports our team reviewed, the specific risk pattern was treating a fee, JIF, or unofficial rate as the submission decision. The editorial triage pattern is stricter in practice: editors actually screen for scope, evidence strength, and audience fit before cost or citation metrics matter.

Use this year-over-year checklist before citing numbers from Nature Reviews Cancer in a grant, CV, or submission memo. It is a verification aid, not a claim that every older value is stable.

Do not use one number as the whole Nature Reviews Cancer decision. Check CiteScore, SJR, H-index, article type, publication volume, and the journal's real audience before treating the fee, acceptance rate, or JIF as decisive.

In our review work, the common mistake is using a metric to justify a weak fit. A stronger submission decision asks whether the manuscript would still look native to the journal if the headline number disappeared.