Science Advances vs Nature Communications: Which Journal Fits Better?
Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.
Submitting to Nature Communications?
Run a free readiness scan to see your score, top risks, and journal fit before you submit.
Science Advances and Nature Communications are the leading open-access broad-scope journals. Both are selective, both have high impact factors, and both are published by major academic publishers. The choice comes down to publisher affiliation, IF preference, and field-specific visibility.
Head-to-Head
Science Advances | Nature Communications | |
|---|---|---|
Impact Factor | 12.5 | 15.7 |
Publisher | AAAS | Springer Nature |
Open access | 100% | 100% |
APC | ~$5,200 | ~$6,290 |
Acceptance rate | ~16% | ~25% |
Review time | 6-10 weeks | 4-8 weeks |
Science Advances Strengths
- AAAS pedigree. Published by the same organization as Science, giving it prestige within the academic publishing ecosystem.
- Slightly lower APC. At ~$5,200 vs Nature Communications' ~$6,290, Science Advances costs less for comparable standing.
- Stronger in physics and earth sciences. If your work is in physical sciences or engineering, Science Advances often has better visibility than Nature Communications in those fields.
- Faster decisions than expected. While listed as 6-10 weeks, many papers see first decision in 4-6 weeks.
Nature Communications Strengths
- Higher IF (15.7 vs 12.5). For career advancement, particularly in biology and chemistry, the IF difference is meaningful.
- Faster average review. Typically 4-8 weeks, and often in the 3-4 week range.
- Stronger visibility in biology and chemistry. Nature Communications has become the go-to high-IF open-access journal in life sciences.
- Nature Portfolio branding. The prestige of the Nature family opens doors — more citations, more media coverage, stronger signal in hiring and promotion contexts.
Field-Specific Considerations
If your work is in physics, earth science, or engineering: Science Advances is the natural target. It has stronger representation in these fields and better editorial fit.
If your work is in biology or chemistry: Nature Communications is more visible and prestigious within your field. The higher IF also matters more in these disciplines.
If your work is interdisciplinary: Either is defensible, but Nature Communications' broader life science focus may give better reach.
Revision and Resubmission
A paper rejected from Science might be resubmitted to Science Advances. A paper rejected from Nature Communications might go to Science Advances. These are overlapping but distinct editorial visions — rejection from one doesn't doom you at the other.
Practical Timing Considerations
Science Advances' slower review (6-10 weeks) becomes relevant if your timeline is tight. Nature Communications' faster turnaround (4-8 weeks) can be a deciding factor if you're aiming for a specific deadline.
Bottom Line
Choose based on field and IF priority. If IF matters significantly (tenure, postdoc competitiveness, grants), Nature Communications wins. If you're in physical sciences or prefer the AAAS association, Science Advances is excellent. Both are highly respectable venues, and your field's norms probably point clearly in one direction.
More Resources
Free scan in about 60 seconds.
Run a free readiness scan before you submit.
More Articles
Submitting to Nature Communications?
Anthropic Privacy Partner - zero retention