Nature vs Science: Which Should You Submit To?
Nature vs Science submission fit: compare editorial scope, acceptance odds, costs, timelines, and which journal is right for your paper.
Manuscript fit
Deciding between these journals? Run a manuscript-specific fit check.
Run the Free Readiness Scan to see which of these venues actually fits your draft. Decision-grade signal in under five minutes.
Nature vs Science at a glance
Use the table to see where the journals diverge before you read the longer comparison. The right choice usually comes down to scope, editorial filter, and the kind of paper you actually have.
Question | Nature | Science |
|---|---|---|
Best fit | Nature is the oldest and most cited multidisciplinary scientific journal in the world,. | Science publishes original research of exceptional significance across all scientific. |
Editors prioritize | Field-shifting significance, not just excellent science | Exceptional significance in fewer words |
Typical article types | Article, Brief Communication | Research Article, Report |
Closest alternatives | Science, Cell | Nature, Cell |
Quick answer: Nature: 2025 JIF 56.1 (2026 JCR release). Science: 2025 JIF 47.3 (2026 JCR release).
Both journals are exceptionally selective and equally prestigious. Choose Nature if your work emphasizes conceptual breakthroughs and fundamental discovery. Choose Science if your work has direct human relevance, engineering applications, or policy implications. Choose based on editorial fit, not prestige.
Metric | Nature | Science |
|---|---|---|
2025 Journal Impact Factor | 56.1 | 47.3 |
Acceptance Rate | About 8% | 5.3% (AAAS, full-year 2025 research content) |
Time to Acceptance (median, 2025) | 321 days | 184 days |
APC | No APC on the subscription route; $12,850 gold OA | No APC described on Science's author pages |
Desk decision | 8 days median to first editorial decision | 8 days median to first decision (AAAS, 2025) |
Papers per year | ~850 research articles | ~800 research articles |
Publisher | Springer Nature | AAAS |
Scope | Fundamental discovery across all sciences | All sciences, slightly broader on engineering and applied research |
How this page was researched
This Nature vs Science comparison was researched from Nature's author and editorial-criteria pages, Science/AAAS author and policy materials, Clarivate JCR data, publisher journal information, and our pre-submission review work on manuscripts considering top multidisciplinary journals. We did not submit a test manuscript to either journal, so timing and submission-process details are based on official-source facts, public journal data, and documented author experience. The comparison exists to help authors choose one sequential submission target, not to answer which journal is more prestigious in the abstract.
Strengths and weaknesses
Journal | What it does well | Where it falls short |
|---|---|---|
Nature | Strong fit for fundamental discovery, broad conceptual shifts, and work that changes how a field understands a system | Gold OA is expensive, desk and post-review competition are severe, and applied work can feel less natural unless the conceptual advance is clear |
Science | Strong fit for major technical advances, policy relevance, engineering, environmental, and applied work with broad scientific reach | Still rejects almost everything, and a paper that lacks broad cross-field consequence can feel too specialized even if the result is strong |
Nature Communications | Better fallback when the work is broad and technically strong but not a Nature-level general-science paper | OA cost and lower selectivity signal than Nature |
Science Advances | Better fallback when the work is broad, open-access suitable, and aligned with the Science family | Less selective signal than Science and still requires broad importance |
Citation profile and prestige - Nearly Identical
Nature's JIF is 56.1; Science's is 47.3 in the 2026 JCR release. In practical career terms, both rank in the top 1% of all journals. Publishing in either one is a career-defining achievement. Hiring committees, grant panels, and universities treat them as equivalent.
The gap in prestige between them is smaller than the gap between either one and the next tier of journals. Don't choose between them based on JIF; the choice should be about fit.
What "Breakthrough" Means at Each Journal
Nature emphasizes fundamental discovery and conceptual innovation. Editors ask: "Does this fundamentally change how we understand this system or field?" The preference is for papers that feel inevitable once published - like they unlock a whole new way of thinking about a problem.
Science also requires significance but has a slightly broader interpretation. Science editors are comfortable with papers that represent major advances without necessarily reshaping the conceptual foundation. A paper that significantly advances a field - even if it's not a conceptual breakthrough - has a shot at Science.
In practice: a study revealing a new fundamental principle in protein biochemistry might fit both. A technological breakthrough that enables new types of research might fit Science slightly better than Nature. A study with surprising implications for an existing paradigm might fit Nature better.
Scope and Research Areas
Both journals accept research across all disciplines. But they have slight editorial preferences:
Nature leans toward fundamental science: molecular mechanisms, theoretical breakthroughs, discoveries that illuminate basic processes in nature. Life sciences, physics, chemistry, and earth sciences dominate.
Science has a stronger tradition in engineering, applied research, technology, and policy. While Nature publishes engineering work, Science is more likely to lead with a breakthrough in materials science, a new technology platform, or an engineering advancement. Science also publishes more policy-related papers.
If you're publishing advanced engineering or applied research, Science has a slight edge in editorial appetite. If it's fundamental discovery, both are equally open.
Editorial Philosophy and Desk Rejection
Nature editors make conservative desk-rejection calls. If they're unsure whether a paper meets the breakthrough threshold, they lean toward review to let peer reviewers weigh in. This means more papers get to review at Nature, but it also means more slow rejections after peer review.
Science editors are slightly more willing to desk-reject if a paper seems incremental. AAAS reports the same 8-day median to first decision as Nature, and they are also slightly more likely to move a borderline paper through to review if it's well-written and solid.
In practical terms: Nature might give your paper the benefit of the doubt more often, but both have very high editorial bars.
Acceptance Rates and Competition
Nature: About 8% acceptance rate.
Science: AAAS reports a 5.3% accept rate for full-year 2025 research articles, reports and research resources (reviews excluded).
Both are highly selective, and the competition is fierce at both journals. AAAS calculates its figure as accept decisions divided by manuscripts with a final decision, for research content only, so treat the gap between about 8% and 5.3% as indicative only; your odds are low at either.
Publication Timeline
Nature: 8 days median to first editorial decision and 321 days to acceptance on Nature's journal metrics page (2025).
Science: 8 days median to first decision, 64 days to the first post-review decision and 184 days to acceptance (AAAS journal metrics, 2025).
Neither journal is fast to acceptance.
How to Decide Between Them
If your work is a fundamental breakthrough: Submit to whichever journal feels like the better fit editorially, or pick one and go. Don't overthink this - either will be thrilled to review it.
If your work is strong but not paradigm-shifting: Science editors sometimes interpret "major advance" more broadly, although the published accept rates do not favor Science (5.3% for Science in 2025, about 8% for Nature). Try Science first, or try both (sequentially).
If your work is engineering, technology, or applied research: Science has a slight edge. Editors there are more comfortable with papers that are about technological advance rather than fundamental discovery.
If your work is fundamental biology, physics, or chemistry: Both are equally welcoming. Choose based on gut feel or your advisor's experience.
If you're really unsure which fits better: Pick one and submit. The 2.7-point JIF difference means nothing compared to the massive luck factor in peer review. Whichever journal's editors and reviewers are having a good day matters more than your choice between them.
In Our Pre-Submission Review Work with Nature vs Science decisions
When a manuscript arrives at Manusights still undecided between Nature and Science, in our review work we see four failure patterns recur often enough to name.
Authors choose by brand memory instead of editorial appetite. Teams often say "Nature first" because it feels slightly more famous, even when the cover letter and abstract would pitch more naturally as a Science-style practical claim than a Nature-style conceptual one.
The paper is too field-internal for both journals. We see strong manuscripts whose introduction and discussion would impress a specialist audience but never state why adjacent fields should change their thinking. Nature and Science both need cross-field consequence argued explicitly, not assumed. If that broader consequence is absent, the right next target is often a top specialty journal, Nature Communications, or Science Advances.
The fallback plan is ignored until rejection arrives. The first submission should anticipate the second. If Nature rejects after review, the revised paper may still be viable for Science. If Science rejects without review because the advance is not broad enough, Nature is often not the logical next move. The sequence matters because the reviewer feedback, results framing, and claims in the abstract should be preserved rather than rebuilt from scratch.
The cover letter just restates the abstract and never answers the editor's real question. Nature and Science editors read dozens of cover letters a week asking the same implicit thing: why does this belong in a general-science journal rather than a strong specialty one. A cover letter that restates the abstract's results without stating the cross-field consequence in plain language reads as unsure of its own case, and desk editors notice the hedge. The fix is not a longer cover letter; it is one sentence, placed first, that plainly names the field outside the authors' own that should care and why.
Strategy if Rejected
If Nature rejects your paper (which is likely), Science is a logical next target. The feedback from Nature reviewers might help you strengthen the manuscript. The revision can be minimal - reformat and resubmit. Science reviewers might appreciate the work even if Nature reviewers found it incremental.
Conversely, if Science rejects you, Nature is less likely to accept it. Rejection at Science suggests the work may not meet Nature's bar either.
The Real Difference
The difference between Nature and Science is not better or worse - it's editorial culture. Nature is slightly more fundamental-discovery focused; Science is slightly more inclusive of applied research and engineering. Both are elite, both are peers, and both will make your career if you publish there.
Don't agonize over the choice. Submit to whichever feels like the better fit, then move on. The outcome will depend far more on peer reviewer opinion than on which journal you picked.
If you want to make sure your manuscript is ready before targeting either Nature or Science, a Nature vs Science desk-rejection readiness check identifies the structural and framing issues that lead to desk rejection at this tier.
Publication costs
Cost | Nature | Science |
|---|---|---|
Subscription publication | No APC (a fee applies to printed colour figures) | No APC (a print colour charge applies) |
Gold OA option | $12,850 | None described on Science's author pages |
OA sister journal | Nature Communications ($7,350 OA) | Science Advances ($5,450 OA) |
Nature lists gold OA at $12,850, while Science's author pages describe no gold OA APC for Science itself; the AAAS open access route is Science Advances. If your funder mandates OA, this difference may influence your choice. Neither charges an APC on the subscription route, though both charge for printed colour figures; check each journal's author pages for the current charge.
The cascade matters too: if Nature desk-rejects, the next step within Springer Nature is a Nature-branded specialty journal or Nature Communications ($7,350). If Science desk-rejects, the next step within AAAS is Science Advances ($5,450). Both cascades provide strong fallback options, and the Science route is cheaper: Science Advances' base APC is $5,450 against $7,350 for Nature Communications.
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Quick decision framework
Here's a practical way to choose between them:
Submit to Nature when your paper's core contribution is a new fundamental principle, mechanism, or conceptual framework. Nature editors (JCI 11.12, rank 2/135 in Multidisciplinary Sciences) lean toward work that reshapes how researchers think about a problem. If your paper's one-sentence pitch starts with "We discovered..." or "We show for the first time that...", Nature is the natural fit.
Submit to Science when your paper's core contribution is a major technical advance, an engineering breakthrough, or a finding with direct policy implications. Science editors (JCI 8.98, rank 3/135) are more comfortable with work where the advance is practical rather than conceptual. If your pitch starts with "We built..." or "We demonstrate a method that enables...", Science is worth trying first.
Submit to either when your work is genuinely paradigm-shifting and the distinction between fundamental and applied doesn't cleanly apply. At that level, editorial luck matters more than journal choice.
Last verified: 2026 JCR release, Nature IF 56.1, JCI 11.12, Q1 rank 2/135; Science IF 47.3, JCI 8.98, Q1 rank 3/135.
Frequently asked questions
Nature, with 2025 JIF 56.1, exceeds Science, with 2025 JIF 47.3, as of the 2026 JCR release. The gap is small and fluctuates. Both are the two most prestigious general science journals.
Nature (Springer Nature) uses professional in-house editors. Science (AAAS) uses a mix of professional editors and academic board members. Nature publishes more papers per year. Both are exceptionally selective, but fit should drive the choice.
Neither is categorically better. Some fields lean toward Nature (life sciences, materials) while others lean toward Science (physical sciences, earth sciences, social sciences). Read recent issues in your field to see which publishes more relevant work.
They are similarly selective. Nature says only about 8% of submitted manuscripts are accepted and most submissions are declined without peer review. Science is also highly selective: AAAS reports a 5.3% accept rate for full-year 2025 research content, so the competition is comparably intense.
You cannot submit simultaneously. If rejected from one, you can submit to the other. Many landmark papers were rejected from one and published in the other. Do not be discouraged by a rejection from either.
Sources
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.
Put the guidance to work
Build a journal decision from more than one signal.
Use comparison data as a starting point, then confirm the live source that governs the actual submission decision.