Nature vs Science: Which Should You Submit To?

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.

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 cutting-edge engineering or applied research, Science has a slight edge in editorial appetite. If it's fundamental discovery, both are equally open.

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. They're faster at saying no but 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.

Nature: ~6% acceptance rate.

Science: ~6-7% acceptance rate (varies slightly by year).

Both are essentially equivalent. The competition is fierce at both journals. The difference in acceptance rate is noise; your odds are equally low at either.

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

Science: ~14 days to first decision in current Manusights canonical data.

Neither journal is fast. Budget for 3-4 months minimum from submission to decision.

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 might have a slightly higher acceptance rate in practice, not because of acceptance rate numbers (which are identical) but because Science editors sometimes interpret "major advance" more broadly. 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.

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 (the more permissive of the two in practice) suggests the work may not meet Nature's bar either.

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.

Science is significantly cheaper for gold OA ($4,500 vs $10,850). If your funder mandates OA, this cost difference may influence your choice. Both allow free subscription publication.

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, but Science's ecosystem is cheaper across the board.

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: JCR 2024, Nature IF 48.5, JCI 11.12, Q1 rank 2/135; Science IF 45.8, JCI 8.98, Q1 rank 3/135.