Nature vs Science Advances: Which Journal Should You Submit To?

Nature and Science Advances are both open-access multidisciplinary journals, but they operate at different tiers. Nature is top-tier (JIF 48.5); Science Advances is high-impact but significantly lower (JIF 12.5). Many authors face this choice: should I aim for Nature or be strategic and target Science Advances? The answer depends on your paper's strength and scope.

Related: How to choose a journal • Nature impact factor • Science Advances impact factor • Avoid desk rejection

Impact Factor and Prestige

Nature's JIF (48.5) is roughly 4x higher than Science Advances (12.5). This reflects a real difference in selectivity, but it doesn't mean Science Advances is low-impact. JIF 12.5 puts Science Advances in Q1 (top quartile) and ranked 12th out of 135 journals in its category. Publishing there is still a significant achievement.

Prestige-wise: Nature is a top-tier career boost. Science Advances is a strong, credible publication that strengthens applications and grant proposals, but without quite the same prestige halo as Nature.

Editorial Bar and Selectivity

Nature is asking: "Does this paper fundamentally change how the field thinks?" Editors are looking for conceptual breakthroughs, paradigm shifts, or research that will be foundational. The bar is extremely high. About 94% of submissions are rejected, many at desk.

Science Advances is asking: "Is this original, rigorous, and significant research that advances the field?" The bar is still very high, but "significant" doesn't require "paradigm-shifting." Good, novel work that makes a real contribution can land here. About 70-80% of submissions are rejected, but fewer at desk—more go to review.

Practical difference: A mechanistic study of a disease protein might be desk-rejected at Nature as too specialized. It could be a solid Science Advances paper.

Scope and Interdisciplinarity

Both journals are openly multidisciplinary and accept work from all sciences. Nature perhaps leans slightly toward biology and medicine in what gets published, while Science Advances is more evenly distributed. But both accept physics, chemistry, engineering, and other fields.

No meaningful difference in scope—this decision factor shouldn't drive your choice.

Open Access and Author Fees

Both are open access. Science Advances is fully open access and charges an article processing fee (typically $3,000+). Nature is now hybrid open access—you can choose to make your paper open access for a fee, or keep it behind a paywall. Check your budget and institutional policies.

Timeline and Feedback

Nature tends to be faster on desk rejections (2-4 weeks if they're rejecting). Science Advances typically sends more papers to review, so you get more feedback (though it takes longer—3-6 months).

If you value feedback over speed, Science Advances may give you useful reviews even if rejected. Nature desk rejections come with little explanation.

How to Decide Between Them

Ask yourself honestly:

• Is this work paradigm-shifting? Will it reshape how the field thinks about a fundamental question? If yes, Nature. If no, consider Science Advances.
• How novel is the contribution? Is it a first-in-field advance or an important incremental step? First-in-field: Nature-range. Important incremental: Science Advances.
• How much validation do you have? Nature expects overwhelming evidence. Science Advances is satisfied with solid, rigorous evidence. If your data is comprehensive, Nature. If it's solid but not overwhelming, Science Advances.
• Can you afford open access fees? Science Advances will cost money. Nature doesn't, unless you choose open access.
• Do you want feedback if rejected? Science Advances sends more to review and gives more feedback. Nature desk rejects more but with less explanation.

The Sequential Strategy

Many authors submit to Nature first. If desk-rejected, they ask: is this paper weaker than I thought, or just not Nature-level? If the rejection feedback suggests the work is solid but not paradigm-shifting, Science Advances is a logical next target. The paper won't need major revision—just reframing.

But don't force a Nature submission for a paper that fits Science Advances better. You'll waste time and face a second rejection.

Examples

Nature-level work:

• Discovery of a completely new cellular mechanism
• First demonstration of a principle in a new domain
• Evidence that overturns a long-held model
• Breakthrough therapeutic approach with mechanism and clinical proof

Science Advances-level work:

• Novel mechanistic insight into a known process
• Important incremental advance in a field
• First application of a technique to a new system with strong results
• Solid translational research with good validation

Final Thoughts

Nature is worth submitting to if you genuinely believe your work is paradigm-shifting. But don't force a Nature submission just for the JIF. If you're uncertain, Science Advances is an excellent home for solid, high-impact research. Publishing in Science Advances strengthens your career and disseminates your work to a broad audience. It's not "settling"—it's being strategic about where your paper is most likely to be accepted and reach the right readers.

The biggest risk is the opposite: hesitating to submit to Nature when your work actually does belong there. If you're uncertain, submit to Nature first and see what the editors say. Rejection is information; use it to guide your next submission.