Nature vs PLoS One: Which Should You Submit To?

Nature's impact factor is 48.5 versus PLoS One's 3.7 (2024 JCR). This is a massive gap—over 13 times higher. Nature ranks in the top 1% of journals globally. PLoS One ranks well (Q2, around percentile 50-70 depending on discipline) but is designed as an open-access megajournal, not an elite selective outlet.

For career impact: Nature is transformative. Publishing there reshapes your trajectory. PLoS One is a solid, legitimate publication that shows you can conduct peer-reviewed research. The prestige difference is significant in competitive contexts (elite postdoc programs, top-tier faculty hiring), but a PLoS One publication is valuable and widely respected.

Nature explicitly rejects papers that don't represent major conceptual breakthroughs. The model is "accept only the best." Editors are gatekeepers, rejecting roughly 94% of submissions before or after peer review. The question is always: "Is this a paradigm-shifting discovery?"

PLoS One uses a fundamentally different approach. It accepts papers based on scientific rigor, not predicted importance. If your methodology is sound, your results are clear, and your conclusions are justified, PLoS One considers it for publication. The questions are: "Is the science valid?" and "Is it interpretable?"—not "Will it change the field?"

Practically: a study that provides a negative result (confirming something doesn't work) would be desk-rejected at Nature but publishable in PLoS One. A well-executed methods paper would be rejected at Nature for being "incremental" but accepted at PLoS One. A study of a narrow disease mechanism would likely be rejected at Nature but published at PLoS One.

Both journals accept research across all sciences. Nature leans slightly toward multidisciplinary work that speaks to broad audiences. PLoS One is equally open to narrow, specialized studies. If your work is important to your subfield but doesn't appeal broadly, PLoS One is more likely to take it.

Nature: ~6% acceptance rate. 94% of papers are rejected.

PLoS One: ~50-70% acceptance rate. This varies by research area, but most technically sound papers that reach review eventually publish.

The acceptance rate difference reflects each journal's mission. Nature is intentionally exclusive. PLoS One is intentionally inclusive—the mission is to make open-access publication available to all researchers doing sound science.

Nature: Initial editor decision (desk rejection or send to review): 1-4 weeks. Peer review (if sent): 2-3 months. Total: 1-4 months depending on outcome.

PLoS One: Initial assessment: 1-2 weeks. Peer review: 3-6 weeks (faster than Nature because reviewers know the criterion is validity, not breakthrough status). Total: 1-2 months on average. PLoS One is significantly faster if your paper is sound.

If speed matters (job applications, grant timelines), PLoS One is the better choice. You'll likely have a publication in 6-8 weeks if the science is solid.

Nature: Subscription model. No APC for authors. Published papers are behind a paywall initially, though authors can self-archive preprints.

PLoS One: Full open access. APC is $1,495 (single payment, no regional variation). Any paper published is free to read globally. This fee is standard; PLoS One doesn't publish closed-access articles.

If your institution or grants cover APCs, PLoS One is very accessible. If budget is tight, Nature's no-cost submission model is appealing—though acceptance is much harder.

Nature is universally recognized as elite. Hiring committees, grant panels, and department heads immediately recognize the prestige. PLoS One is respected but more as a "good place to publish" than an "elite achievement." This matters for career advancement in competitive fields but matters less in many areas where peer-reviewed publication is what counts.

In some fields (computer science, for example), PLoS One is less common and less prioritized than discipline-specific journals. In biomedical and life sciences, PLoS One is mainstream and well-regarded.

Breakthrough research: Try Nature. You have an obligation to yourself to test the highest tier if you think you've made a major discovery.

Strong, novel work that's not a breakthrough: Consider both. If you need publication fast and want open access, start with PLoS One. If you want to test whether the work is breakthrough-level, try Nature first and use PLoS One as your backup.

Solid science, narrow focus, incremental advance: PLoS One is your target. It's designed for this. You'll publish faster, likely with fewer revision rounds, and your work will reach a global open-access audience.

Under time pressure: PLoS One. The timeline advantage is real. If you need publication within 2 months, PLoS One gives you a reasonable shot. Nature will likely result in desk rejection or a months-long process.

Limited funding for open access: Nature avoids APCs. But acceptance is so unlikely that PLoS One may be more pragmatic despite the APC.

Many researchers use this logic: If I'm confident this is a breakthrough, I submit to Nature. If Nature desk-rejects (which is likely), I immediately reformat and submit to PLoS One. The Nature rejection feedback (if any) can sometimes improve the PLoS One submission.

Some skip Nature entirely and go to PLoS One to ensure publication quickly, then submit stronger future work to Nature.

Nature and PLoS One aren't in competition; they serve different functions. Nature publishes paradigm-shifting discoveries. PLoS One publishes peer-reviewed, rigorous science without the breakthrough requirement. Both are legitimate, peer-reviewed publications. The choice depends on your paper's impact level, your timeline, your budget, and your career stage.

Publishing in PLoS One is not settling. It's a strategic choice to get valid science into the literature where it will be read and used by researchers worldwide.