Nature vs PNAS: Which Should You Submit To?

• Your finding is genuinely paradigm-shifting with broad interdisciplinary significance

• The result changes how scientists outside your subfield think about a problem

• You have strong preliminary data and can handle a long timeline (Nature's 2025 median from submission to acceptance is 321 days)

• The work is conceptually novel, not just technically excellent

• Your work is excellent within its discipline but doesn't require Nature's extreme threshold

• You need a prestigious, broadly read venue with a shorter published timeline (see Publication Timeline below)

• Your paper is significant and novel but primarily relevant to your research area

• You want a more achievable target that's still top-tier for grants and promotions

Nature carries the stronger flagship citation signal, but that is not the main decision variable for most manuscripts. The practical split is editorial threshold: Nature is screening for field-redefining work with clear cross-disciplinary significance, while PNAS is screening for excellent research that can matter strongly within a discipline without needing a flagship-level claim.

For career impact: Nature is elite and career-defining. PNAS is also highly prestigious and strongly respected by hiring committees and grant agencies. Publishing in PNAS is a significant achievement and a major CV credential. The prestige gap is real but not as extreme as, say, the gap between PNAS and a good mid-tier journal.

Nature accepts only papers representing major conceptual advances or paradigm shifts. The bar is explicit: will this fundamentally reshape the field? Editors are gatekeepers, asking whether the work represents a turning point in science. Nature says only about 8% of submitted manuscripts are accepted, and that most submissions are declined without being sent out for peer review.

PNAS has a higher bar than many journals but doesn't require breakthrough status. PNAS editors look for papers that are novel, methodologically sound, and significant within their research area. A study can be important without being paradigm-shifting and still belong in PNAS. The questions are: "Is this high-quality research that advances the field?" and "Will it be influential in its area?"

In practice: a new mechanism study that's technically excellent and advances understanding in a specific area might be "too incremental" for Nature but publishable in PNAS. A technological advance that enables new types of research would be welcome at PNAS even if Nature might pass. A breakthrough discovery would be welcome at both.

Both journals accept research across all sciences: biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, engineering, geology, and beyond. Neither restricts by discipline. The difference is the significance threshold, not the scope. PNAS is slightly more welcoming to disciplinary work and narrow findings as long as the science is excellent.

Nature: about 8% acceptance rate ("only about 8% of submitted manuscripts will be accepted for publication"). Very few papers are accepted.

PNAS: 14% acceptance rate on its editorial policies page, and 13% for Direct Submissions in 2025 on its journal metrics page. This is higher than Nature but still highly selective. Most papers are rejected.

The higher PNAS rate reflects a slightly more inclusive editorial mission. Nature is intentionally more exclusive.

PNAS allows submissions through two routes:

Direct submissions: You submit your paper, and PNAS editors decide whether to send it to peer review or desk-reject. This is the standard route.

Contributed submissions: NAS members may contribute up to two research manuscripts annually, within their area of expertise and in work where the member had a direct, significant role in the design and execution. Contributed manuscripts are still peer-reviewed by at least two independent experts, and PNAS expects members to use the track for work that ideally exceeds the standards for Direct Submissions. If an NAS member is a coauthor with that kind of role in your work, this route is worth exploring.

Nature doesn't have this member-contributed pathway, so it's purely editor and peer-review based.

Nature: 8 days median from submission to first editorial decision, and 321 days median from submission to acceptance, on Nature's journal metrics page (checked October 8, 2026). The first number is the desk call; the second includes review and revision.

PNAS: 10 days from submission to first decision, 45 days to a first post-review decision, and 6.5 months to online publication, on PNAS's 2025 journal metrics page. The first-decision figures are close (8 days at Nature, 10 days at PNAS); the larger gap is later in the process, since Nature's 321 days runs to acceptance while PNAS's 6.5 months runs all the way to online publication.

If publication speed matters, PNAS's published figures point to a shorter end-to-end timeline.

Nature: The subscription route has no APC, and published papers on it are behind a paywall (though authors can self-archive preprints). Gold open access costs $12,850 (also £9,390 and €10,850).

PNAS: PNAS charges an APC on regular research articles. For articles published in volume 123 and later, delayed open access (free to read within six months) is $3,025 and immediate open access is $6,075 ($5,575 for corresponding authors at institutions with current-year site licenses). PNAS grants waivers for authors who do not have funding to cover the charges.

On cost, Nature's subscription route has no APC, while PNAS charges $3,025 to $6,075 for a regular research article, depending on the open access route.

Nature editors are gatekeepers. They're highly selective about what goes to peer review. Most rejection happens at the desk stage with brief explanations. This saves time but can feel harsh.

PNAS editors are more likely to send papers to peer review. Even papers that seem marginal or narrow can go to reviewers if the science is solid. You're more likely to get detailed reviewer feedback, which provides actionable information for revision or future submissions.

Paradigm-shifting breakthrough: Try Nature first. You have an obligation to test the highest tier if you think the work is truly transformative. PNAS is your fallback if Nature rejects.

Excellent research that advances your field significantly: PNAS is a great target. You have reasonable odds (PNAS states 13% to 14%, against about 8% at Nature) and a shorter published timeline. If you want to be conservative, start at PNAS. If you want to reach for the top, try Nature first then PNAS.

High-quality work within a specialized area: PNAS is the right choice. Nature will likely desk-reject it; PNAS will consider it seriously if the science is excellent.

Looking for faster publication timeline: PNAS's published figures are shorter end to end: 6.5 months to online publication, against Nature's 321-day median to acceptance alone. First-decision times are close (10 days at PNAS, 8 days at Nature).

Have an NAS member as a coauthor: Consider the contributed submission route if that member had a direct, significant role in the work. Contributed manuscripts are still peer-reviewed by at least two independent experts.

Many researchers use this approach: If the work is clearly paradigm-shifting, submit to Nature. If Nature rejects (likely), immediately submit to PNAS. Use the Nature feedback (if you got to review) to refine your PNAS submission if needed.

Some skip Nature entirely and go directly to PNAS if they're confident the work is high-quality but not necessarily breakthrough-level. This saves time and increases publication odds.

Nature and PNAS are both prestigious, peer-reviewed journals with rigorous standards. Nature is more selective and elite; PNAS is highly respected with slightly more achievable acceptance odds. Both will strengthen your CV significantly. The choice depends on how you honestly assess your paper's impact level and whether you want to chase the top tier or publish in a top-tier venue with better odds.

Publishing in PNAS is not "settling." It's a top-tier publication with real prestige and influence in the scientific community.

If you are deciding between Nature and PNAS, a Nature vs. PNAS scope check can assess whether your manuscript has the broad impact that Nature requires or is stronger as a PNAS submission.