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 6-12 month timeline

• 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 faster turnaround (2-3 months)

• 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. Roughly 94% of submissions are rejected, often at the desk stage.

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: ~6% acceptance rate. Very few papers are accepted.

PNAS: ~10-15% acceptance rate (varies by subfield). This is higher than Nature but still highly selective. Most papers are rejected, but your odds are roughly 2-2.5 times better than at Nature.

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: If a PNAS member (an elected National Academy member or fellow) recommends your paper and vouches for it, your paper goes directly to review. This significantly increases odds of acceptance. If you have a collaborator or mentor who's a PNAS member, this route is worth exploring.

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

Nature: 7 days median to first decision on the current Nature journal information page.

PNAS: Desk decision within 1-2 weeks. Peer review typically 4-8 weeks. Total: 2-3 months on average. PNAS is generally faster than Nature, particularly on initial editorial assessment.

If publication speed matters, PNAS has a slight advantage over Nature. You're likely to get a decision faster.

Nature: Subscription model. No APC required. Published papers are behind a paywall (though authors can self-archive preprints).

PNAS: Open-access option available. Subscription publication carries no mandatory fee, and current Manusights canonical data puts the optional CC BY open-access charge at about $1,830.

Both journals offer good value. Nature costs authors nothing upfront; PNAS offers free publication (subscription-access) or open access for a fee.

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 (10-15% vs Nature's 6%) and faster feedback. 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 edges out Nature on speed. The combination of faster editorial assessment and faster review typically results in publication 1-2 months quicker than Nature.

Have a PNAS member recommending you: Strongly consider the contributed submission route. Your odds of acceptance increase significantly with a member recommendation.

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.