Nature vs Nature Communications: Which Should You Submit To?

Nature accepts papers only if they represent major conceptual advances or paradigm shifts. The work should feel inevitable and transformative once you read it. Technical rigor is table stakes, but it isn't enough on its own. According to Clarivate data, Nature publishes fewer than 900 original research articles per year from roughly 10,000 submissions.

Nature Communications uses a higher bar than most journals but doesn't require field-wide significance. A new method in your field might be "too incremental" for Nature but an excellent fit for Nature Communications. A study revealing a new fundamental mechanism in a narrow subfield might be Nature-worthy if the implications are broad enough, or Nature Communications if they're more specialized.

In practice, the editorial machines are structurally different. Nature uses full-time professional editors who are generalists across all of science. Nature Communications also uses full-time professional PhDs, but the volume is massive: 60,000+ submissions per year. At Nature Communications, your cover letter is your primary advocacy tool because editors are scanning for significance signals across hundreds of papers per week.

Both journals accept research across all sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, geology, medicine, engineering, and more. Nature has a slight editorial preference for work with potential to impact multiple fields. Nature Communications is more open to disciplinary work; a solid advance in one field is publishable even if it doesn't speak to other disciplines.

The scope is less limiting than the impact threshold. If your work is novel and rigorous, both journals will consider it. The difference is whether it meets each journal's bar for significance.

Both journals invite revisions rather than just reject/accept. You'll often have a chance to address reviewer feedback, though major revision requests are still rigorous. SciRev community data shows mixed experiences with Nature Communications review times, with some authors reporting 3+ month waits before a first decision.

Nature is subscription-based. There's no APC for submission. If accepted, your paper is behind the Nature paywall, though authors receive print copies and can self-archive preprints.

Nature Communications is pure open access. The APC is $7,350 (varies by country and author eligibility). If accepted, your paper is free for the world to read. Research shows that open-access articles in high-visibility journals receive 18-42% more citations in the first two years, which partly explains Nature Communications' strong citation profile relative to its acceptance bar.

If your institution has Springer Nature coverage or you're in a region with reduced fees, Nature Communications becomes more competitive. If budget is tight, Nature's no-APC model is better, though acceptance rates are much lower.

Nature editors are highly selective at the desk stage. In practice, roughly 90% of submissions never reach peer review. If they think your paper won't meet the breakthrough standard, they'll reject before peer review. This happens fast (within 2 weeks usually) and can feel harsh, but it's efficient: you get a quick answer and can move on.

Nature Communications editors are more likely to send borderline papers to review. The desk-rejection rate is lower (roughly 75%), which means longer feedback cycles but also better odds of getting your work reviewed if it's solid but not flashy. Once past the desk, research on Nature portfolio submissions shows approximately 44% acceptance under single-blind review.

For manuscripts targeting both journals, we see three patterns that the metrics don't capture.

Method note: we reviewed official-source facts, current Manusights canonical journal data, and public review patterns for this comparison. Public pages often treat Nature vs Nature Communications as a prestige ladder; this guide separates editor screen logic, open-access tradeoffs, cascade strategy, and when a specialist journal is the better alternative.

The pros and cons are deliberately practical. Nature can create the strongest career signal, but the desk screen is extremely unforgiving and many excellent papers should not start there. Nature Communications gives broader access and a more realistic disciplinary-advance path, but the APC and brand expectations can be costly if the fit is wrong. This analysis is based on public and official-source data; we did not test private editorial workflows or unpublished acceptance decisions.

The cross-field significance claim that doesn't survive triage. This sinks more Nature submissions than weak methodology. The paper presents strong disciplinary work, but the introduction promises to "transform regenerative medicine" or "reshape our understanding of cellular dynamics" without evidence of cross-field applicability. Nature editors spot this in the first paragraph. We find that roughly 60% of the Nature-targeted manuscripts we review have this framing mismatch. The same paper, framed honestly as a disciplinary advance, is a strong Nature Communications submission.

The cover letter that doesn't do the editorial work. At Nature Communications, editors are scanning hundreds of submissions per week. The abstract alone won't sell the paper the way it might at Nature. We see manuscripts where the cover letter is a generic two paragraphs restating the abstract. In practice, Nature Communications editors rely heavily on the cover letter to understand why the work matters to a broader audience.

Papers where the cover letter explicitly maps the finding to a specific research question in the field get to review more consistently.

The methods-first paper without a biological or physical result. Both journals consistently desk-reject papers that read as methods papers without a substantive result. We notice this pattern especially in computational biology and materials science. If the primary contribution is a new algorithm, a new probe, or a new synthesis route, Nature Methods, Nature Protocols, or a specialist journal is a stronger fit. Both Nature and Nature Communications want the method to be in service of a finding, not the finding in service of the method.

One data point worth knowing: according to SciRev community data, the editorial culture at Nature Communications has shifted toward faster desk decisions in the last two years, with some authors reporting decisions within 10 days. This isn't universal, but the trend toward efficiency is documented.

Before deciding between the two, a Nature vs NComms framing check identifies whether your significance case reads as Nature-level cross-field impact or Nature Communications-level disciplinary advance before you commit to either submission.

If you submit to Nature and get a desk rejection, you can reformat and submit to Nature Communications with minimal delay. They use similar formatting, and both accept the same research types. Use the Nature rejection feedback to refine your submission.

Don't see this as Nature being "better" and Communications being "second choice." Nature Communications papers are highly cited and taken seriously by the research community. Many strong labs publish in both journals depending on the project. Per JCR 2024, Nature Communications ranks 10th of 135 journals in Multidisciplinary Sciences, which puts it ahead of PNAS and most field-specific journals.

The practical lesson from reviewing manuscripts targeting both: calibrate your framing before you submit, not after the first rejection. A framing calibration check catches the mismatches that cause 3-6 month cascade rejections before you find out from the first desk decision.