Rejected from Science? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next

Science uses full-time professional editors with PhD-level training. Each editor handles a specific disciplinary portfolio. When your paper arrives, the assigned editor reads the abstract, skims the figures, and makes a judgment call: does this paper tell a story that will change how scientists think about something?

That bar is deliberately vague. Science's editors aren't looking for the most rigorous paper in your field. They're looking for the most surprising one. A technically perfect study confirming existing theory won't make it past the desk. A messier study revealing something nobody expected might.

The fast desk rejection (1-7 days). The editor read your abstract and decided the finding, however solid, doesn't meet the "reshape understanding" threshold for Science's general audience. This is the most common outcome and says nothing about your paper's quality.

The consulted desk rejection (2-4 weeks). The editor was interested enough to discuss your paper with colleagues or the Board of Reviewing Editors but ultimately decided against external review. This is a borderline case, and your paper likely has strong potential at a slightly less selective venue.

The post-review rejection. You got reviewer feedback but the editor decided the paper doesn't quite land. This actually gives you the most to work with. You have expert opinions, and many target journals will accept or request those reviews as part of your new submission.

Before you submit elsewhere, check whether Science offered a transfer. The AAAS publishes several sibling journals, and Science editors can route rejected manuscripts to:

• Science Advances (broad scope, open access, IF ~12)
• Science Translational Medicine (clinical/translational research, IF ~15)
• Science Immunology (IF ~25)
• Science Signaling (cell signaling and regulatory biology, IF ~8)
• Science Robotics (IF ~23)

A transfer from Science carries weight. The receiving journal's editor knows that Science's editorial team found the paper interesting enough to consider, even if it didn't make the cut for the flagship. Your referee reports (if any) transfer with the manuscript, which often speeds up the review process.

If Science didn't offer a transfer, you can still submit to these journals independently. Just don't mention the Science rejection in your new cover letter.

Before choosing your next journal, a Science manuscript fit check can tell you whether the issue was scope or something more fundamental to address first.

1. Nature

Nature is the mirror image of Science. Both journals want the same thing, broadly transformative findings, but their editorial cultures differ in ways that can matter for your paper.

Science tends to reward clean narrative arcs. Papers in Science often tell a single surprising story with elegant economy. Nature tolerates (even expects) more complexity. A Nature paper can be a multi-system, multi-technique tour de force with 12 main figures and 30 supplementary ones.

If Science rejected your paper because the story was "too complex" or "difficult to distill," Nature might be more receptive to the full picture. If Science rejected because the finding was "incremental," Nature will likely agree.

Best for: Papers that Science found interesting but couldn't distill into a clean narrative. Papers with complex, multi-layered datasets.

2. Science Advances

This is the most natural landing spot for Science rejects, especially if you got a transfer offer. Science Advances uses academic editors (working scientists) rather than Science's full-time professional editors, which gives the review process a different feel. The desk decision can be slower (3-6 weeks) because academic editors are juggling their own research.

Science Advances wants papers that represent a clear advance in their field, even if they don't cross disciplinary boundaries. That's a meaningful step down from Science's "change how scientists think" bar, and it's exactly where many strong Science rejects fit.

The $5,450 APC is a real cost. Check whether your institution has a Transformative Agreement with AAAS. Many US and European research institutions do.

Best for: Papers where Science's feedback (or lack thereof) suggested "interesting but not impactful enough for Science." Also strong for interdisciplinary and methods papers.

3. PNAS

PNAS is the most forgiving of the broad-scope journals. With an acceptance rate around 15%, it's roughly twice as accessible as Science or Nature. The journal values methodological rigor and scientific completeness over narrative surprise.

PNAS uses a direct submission track for all manuscripts. A contributed track that allowed NAS members to shepherd papers through review was discontinued in January 2022.

One underappreciated advantage: PNAS publishes across every scientific discipline, from physics to social science. If your paper is genuinely interdisciplinary but didn't fit Science's narrative requirements, PNAS may be the right scope match.

Best for: Methodologically strong papers that advance their field without necessarily having a "eureka" moment. Papers where completeness and rigor matter more than surprise.

4. Cell

For life science manuscripts, Cell is the strongest alternative to Science. Cell doesn't need your paper to interest physicists or computer scientists. It needs your paper to reveal a complete biological mechanism.

Where Science wants surprise, Cell wants depth. Cell editors and reviewers expect full pathway characterization. Showing that protein X affects process Y isn't enough. They want to know how, through what intermediary, and with what controls proving specificity. That level of mechanistic detail can actually work in your favor if Science rejected you for being "too focused" on one system.

Best for: Biomedical and life science papers with deep mechanistic data. Papers that Science found too discipline-specific.

5. Nature Communications

If your paper has clear scientific merit but doesn't match the impact expectations of Science, Nature, or Cell, Nature Communications is a strong option. It publishes technically sound work that advances a specific field, without requiring cross-disciplinary appeal.

The acceptance rate (~14%) is much more accessible. The APC ($7,350) is the highest on this list, but Springer Nature's Read and Publish agreements with hundreds of institutions mean many authors pay nothing out of pocket.

Best for: Papers that are clearly good science but don't have the narrative punch for the very top tier. Also useful as a rapid backup when you need a decision quickly.

6. PLOS Biology

PLOS Biology occupies a niche between the mega-selective journals and the broad open-access platforms. It wants papers that provide biological insight with broad implications, similar to Science's criteria but with more tolerance for work that stays within biology.

PLOS Biology has shifted toward a model emphasizing reproducibility and open data. If your paper includes pre-registered analyses, openly shared datasets, or strong replication, PLOS Biology values that more explicitly than most competitors.

Best for: Biology papers with strong data and broad implications. Particularly good if your paper emphasizes reproducibility or includes large shared datasets.

7. eLife

eLife has gone through significant changes in its publishing model. The journal now publishes all papers that pass peer review, along with the reviews themselves, under what it calls "publish, then curate." This means your paper gets published with its reviews attached, and readers can judge the work in context.

This model eliminates the binary accept/reject decision after review. If your frustration with Science was the opaque editorial process, eLife offers radical transparency. The tradeoff is that eLife's prestige signal is still evolving, and some hiring committees haven't caught up with the new model.

Best for: Papers where you want transparent peer review and rapid publication. Strong for early-career researchers who benefit from published reviewer endorsement.

Think of your post-rejection plan as a decision tree, not a ranked list:

If Science desk-rejected you in under a week: The paper's quality isn't in question. Target Nature (if you genuinely believe the work is broadly transformative), or move to Science Advances or PNAS (if the scope is narrower than Science requires).

If Science rejected after a longer editorial hold (2-4 weeks): Your paper was borderline. Science Advances (especially via transfer) or a top specialty journal is the sweet spot.

If Science rejected after peer review: You have reviewer data. Fix what you can, and use those reports. Nature Communications, PNAS, and many specialty journals will ask for or accept existing reviews. This can cut weeks off your timeline.

Reframe, don't rewrite. Your data didn't fail. The framing didn't connect with Science's editorial filter. When you move to a new journal, rewrite your introduction and cover letter to speak to that journal's priorities. PNAS cares about rigor. Cell cares about mechanism. Nature Communications cares about the field-level advance.

Fix anything reviewers flagged. If you got peer review feedback, address it. Submitting the same version elsewhere wastes everyone's time and risks getting the same reviewers.

Update your cover letter completely. Don't recycle your Science cover letter with the journal name swapped. Each journal has different readers, different editors, and different ideas about what constitutes an advance. Show the editor you've thought about fit.

Run your manuscript through a manuscript scope and readiness check to catch formatting issues, structural gaps, and scope mismatches before an editor does. It takes two minutes and can save you a desk rejection cycle.

Resubmit to the same tier if:

• Reviewers praised the science but identified fixable issues
• You can address concerns within 2-3 months

Move to a different journal if:

• The rejection cited scope mismatch, not quality
• Your timeline needs a decision within 2-3 months

Reframe before resubmitting if:

• Reviewers found fundamental methodology concerns
• New experiments are needed to support the claims

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Science, three patterns account for the overwhelming majority of desk rejections worth knowing before deciding where to submit next.

Cross-disciplinary significance not demonstrated. Science's editorial bar is not excellence within a field. It is a discovery that changes what scientists across disciplines consider possible or settled. We see this failure as the dominant pattern in Science desk rejections we review: papers that represent genuine advances in biology, physics, chemistry, or Earth science but whose central claim would not compel a researcher from an adjacent discipline to stop and reconsider an assumption in their own field. In our review of Science submissions, we find that editors consistently distinguish between "important to the field" and "important enough that other sciences must account for it," and apply the second, harder standard.

Finding expected by the field from existing theoretical or empirical frameworks. Science specifically rewards findings that are surprising relative to current knowledge. Papers confirming a longstanding theoretical prediction, demonstrating that a known biological mechanism operates in an additional system, or validating a hypothesis the field has held for years do not clear Science's threshold even when the execution is exemplary. We see this in the majority of slow-desk-rejection manuscripts we review: technically rigorous papers in well-active areas where Science has already defined the recent frontier.

Reproducibility and statistical rigor concerns raised during peer review. Science strengthened its statistical review standards substantially following high-profile replication failures, and its editors now treat statistical power, preregistration, and independent replication as gatekeeping requirements at the review stage. We see this pattern in post-review Science rejections we review: papers with a compelling finding where the sample sizes were not powered for the effect size claimed, where multiple comparisons were not accounted for, or where the central experiment had not been independently replicated by a second operator or in a second laboratory. Science's reviewers specifically ask whether the finding would survive a replication attempt before recommending acceptance.

SciRev community data for Science confirms desk decisions typically within 1-2 weeks, with fast desk rejections (scope only) often arriving within 3-5 days.

Think twice before submitting the same version to Nature or Cell if Science's rejection came with specific concerns about cross-disciplinary significance; those journals share the same requirement and the same gap will surface.