PNAS vs Nature Communications: Honest Tradeoffs for Authors

PNAS and Nature Communications both publish broad-scope research, but they differ meaningfully in selectivity, impact factor, and editorial philosophy. PNAS carries an IF of 9.1; Nature Communications carries 15.7. Both are open access or have open access tracks. The choice depends on whether you're optimizing for impact, speed, or both.

The Core Difference

The headline: Nature Communications has a higher IF and is faster. PNAS has more editorial flexibility through multiple submission tracks.

PNAS Strengths

• Multiple submission tracks. PNAS allows members to recommend reviewers and sometimes expedite review. This creates pathways for niche work that might not survive standard review elsewhere.
• Lower APC for OA. If you want fully open access, PNAS' track is often cheaper than Nature Communications' ~$6,290.
• Prestigious pedigree. Founded in 1914, PNAS carries institutional weight that some senior researchers still value.
• Flexibility in scope. PNAS is genuinely broad — it publishes everything from molecular biology to policy research in ways Nature Communications sometimes nudges toward "sexier" topics.

Nature Communications Strengths

• Higher IF (15.7 vs 9.1). This matters for career advancement and grant prospects in many fields.
• Faster review. Typically 2-3 months vs PNAS' 3-4 months.
• Nature Portfolio branding. The Nature brand carries significant prestige and visibility. Papers in Nature Communications get more media attention and readership than equivalent PNAS papers.
• Consistent open access. All Nature Communications papers are open access by default; PNAS has a member/non-member distinction that complicates accessibility.

When to Target PNAS

• Your work doesn't quite hit Nature Communications' selectivity bar but is scientifically solid
• You have a PNAS member who can recommend reviewers (speeds review significantly)
• Your work is in social sciences, policy-adjacent research, or other areas where PNAS traditionally has strong reach
• Budget is a constraint — PNAS OA track may be more affordable
• You prefer the flexibility of multiple submission routes

When to Target Nature Communications

• The IF differential matters for your career moment (tenure, promotion, postdoc applications)
• You need faster review — 2-3 months vs 3-4 matters for your timeline
• Your work is in biology, chemistry, or materials science where Nature Communications has stronger journal prestige within your field
• You want the Nature brand visibility and media amplification

After Rejection from One, Try the Other

Because of the overlapping scope and complementary strengths, rejected PNAS papers often succeed at Nature Communications, and vice versa. The editorial filters are different enough that a paper rejected from one can be strengthened and submitted to the other.

For papers rejected from NEJM Communications: try PNAS first if you're comfortable with the member-track option, or Nature Communications if timeline allows for slightly slower review.

Bottom Line

Nature Communications wins on prestige and speed. PNAS wins on flexibility and niche fit. Both are strong, respectable targets. Your choice should depend on your career timeline and whether the Nature IF differential matters to your specific situation.

More Resources

• Nature Communications submission guide
• PNAS submission guide
• Nature Communications vs Scientific Reports
• What is impact factor?
• How to choose a journal for your paper