Rejected from Science Advances? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next

Science Advances occupies a specific niche: broad-scope, open-access, affiliated with the AAAS/Science brand. The journal wants papers that represent a clear advance within their field, but without requiring the cross-disciplinary impact that Science itself demands.

Common rejection patterns

"The advance is incremental." Your paper refines existing knowledge but doesn't change direction within the field. Science Advances wants the paper to shift the conversation, even within a specialty.

"The methodology has concerns." Science Advances' academic editors often identify methodological issues during the desk review. Because they're working scientists in your field, they may spot specific technical problems that a professional editor might not.

"The scope is too narrow for our readership." Your paper is excellent but interests only a small specialist community. Science Advances needs broader appeal than a pure specialty journal.

"Reviewer logistics delayed the decision." Science Advances sometimes takes longer to secure reviewers because academic editors handle reviewer recruitment alongside their own research. This isn't a quality judgment, but it affects your timeline.

1. Nature Communications

Nature Communications is Science Advances' most direct competitor: broad scope, open access, high impact. The IF (~16) is higher than Science Advances (~12), but the acceptance rate (~25%) is also higher. Nature Communications uses professional editors, so desk decisions come in 1-2 weeks rather than the 3-6 weeks Science Advances sometimes takes.

If Science Advances rejected your paper for scope or novelty reasons, Nature Communications' different editorial team may see it differently.

Best for: Papers that Science Advances found interesting but not quite impactful enough. Interdisciplinary work.

2. PNAS

PNAS values rigor and completeness over narrative novelty. If Science Advances rejected your paper because the advance was "incremental," PNAS may disagree. The journal is more receptive to careful, confirmatory, and extensional work than Science Advances tends to be.

PNAS also offers a non-OA track (lower APC), which matters if open-access fees are a concern.

Best for: Rigorous research across all disciplines. Papers where rigor matters more than narrative surprise.

3. eLife

eLife's "publish, then curate" model means your paper is published with reviews attached, eliminating the binary accept/reject decision after review. For papers that Science Advances rejected based on subjective novelty judgments, eLife's transparent model lets the community decide.

Best for: Biology papers where transparent review benefits the narrative. Computational and theoretical work.

4. Advanced Science

For materials science, nanotechnology, chemistry, and engineering, Advanced Science is a strong interdisciplinary option with an IF around 14. If Science Advances rejected your physical sciences paper, Advanced Science reaches a similar interdisciplinary audience.

Best for: Materials, nanotechnology, chemistry, energy research, and interdisciplinary physical science.

5. Cell Reports

For life science papers, Cell Reports provides the Cell Press editorial quality with a ~25% acceptance rate. If your paper is biology-focused and Science Advances rejected it, Cell Reports is a strong alternative.

Best for: Life science research with solid but not transformative findings.

6. PLOS Biology

PLOS Biology shares Science Advances' commitment to open access and values reproducibility, open data, and methodological rigor. If your paper has a strong open-science component, PLOS Biology may value that.

Best for: Biology with broad implications, open-science-focused research.

7. Your top field-specific journal

If Science Advances rejected your paper for being "too specialized," that's a direct signal to submit to the top journal in your field. Specialty journals' editors understand the field context better and may see novelty where generalist editors didn't.

Best for: Any paper where the primary contribution is within one discipline.

Consider the editorial style difference. Science Advances uses academic editors who are active researchers in your field. If they spotted a specific technical problem, take it seriously because it comes from someone who knows the science. Nature Communications uses professional editors who may evaluate differently.

Address the APC question. Science Advances charges $5,000. Nature Communications charges $6,790. PNAS charges $3,450-$5,500 depending on the track. If APC cost is a factor, check your institution's Transformative Agreements before choosing based on sticker price. Many institutions have agreements that cover fees at specific publishers.

Reframe for the new journal's scope. Nature Communications wants significance within the field. PNAS values rigor and completeness. eLife values transparent, reproducible science. Adjust your introduction and cover letter to match each journal's priorities.

Don't rush to resubmit the identical manuscript. Science Advances' slower desk process means you've already lost time. Use a few days to genuinely improve the paper before submitting elsewhere. Fix any methodological issues the editor flagged, even if you disagree with them, because other journals will likely flag the same things.

Desk-rejected for "insufficient novelty"? Nature Communications (different editorial perspective) or PNAS (values rigor over novelty).

Rejected for methodology? Fix the methods before submitting anywhere.

Rejected for "too specialized"? Go to your field's top journal. That's not a step down; it's a better fit.

Rejected after peer review? Fix concerns and submit to Nature Communications or PNAS with a note that the paper has been peer-reviewed.

Run your manuscript through a free Manusights scan to check formatting, structure, and scope alignment before your next submission.