Science Advances vs PNAS: High-Impact Journals, Different Paths

Science Advances and PNAS are both high-impact multidisciplinary journals that publish solid research across all sciences. They're often considered in the same tier by researchers evaluating target journals. But they have distinct editorial philosophies, acceptance rates, and specialties. Understanding the differences helps you choose strategically and increases your odds of acceptance.

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

Impact Factor

Science Advances has the higher JIF: 12.5 vs. PNAS's 9.1 (2024 JCR). That's a meaningful gap—about 38% higher. Both are Q1 (top quartile), but Science Advances ranks 12th out of 135 journals in its category, while PNAS ranks lower. The numerical difference reflects real editorial selectivity.

Prestige-wise, both are highly respected, but PNAS carries more historical prestige (it's been around since 1914 and is the official publication of the National Academy of Sciences). Science Advances is newer (launched 2015) but has quickly built credibility.

Acceptance Rate: The Key Practical Difference

This is where they diverge significantly:

• Science Advances: ~20-30% acceptance rate
• PNAS: ~12-15% acceptance rate

Science Advances is almost 2x more accepting. This matters practically: a paper rejected from PNAS might be accepted at Science Advances. If acceptance probability influences your journal choice, Science Advances is the easier target.

But acceptance rate isn't everything—PNAS's higher selectivity means published papers there carry slightly more weight.

Editorial Philosophy and Scope

Science Advances is explicitly a high-quality outlet for important research that might not reach the absolute top tier (Nature/Science). The scope is broad: all sciences, all quality levels above a threshold. It publishes breakthroughs and solid incremental advances alike, as long as the science is rigorous and novel.

PNAS is the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences and leans toward "significance" in a broader sense—not just novelty, but impact on policy, society, or fundamental understanding. It has historically emphasized work by NAS members and their nominees. Recent reforms have opened it up, but that legacy still shapes editorial thinking.

Practical difference: A paper on a new protein structure might excel at Science Advances as solid structural biology. PNAS would want to know: does this structure change how we think about protein biology or have translational significance?

Open Access and Cost

Science Advances is fully open access. Articles cost ~$3,000+ in author processing fees (though waivers are available).

PNAS is hybrid. You can publish open or behind a paywall. If behind a paywall, there's no author fee. If you choose open access, it costs ~$2,000-3,000. Some authors choose paywall access to save costs.

If open access is a requirement (funder mandate, ethical preference), Science Advances is your only option. If cost is a concern, PNAS's traditional paywall option is cheaper.

Timeline and Feedback

Both take roughly 3-4 months to first decision. Neither is particularly fast. Science Advances sends nearly everything to review (higher desk-accept rate). PNAS desk-rejects more papers (higher selectivity).

If rejected, Science Advances will often give you reviewer feedback. PNAS desk rejections may come with less explanation but better feedback on papers that go to review.

How to Decide

Ask yourself:

• Do you need open access? If yes (funder requirement, ethical preference), Science Advances. If cost is no issue and paywall is acceptable, PNAS is an option.
• How novel is your work? If it's solid, rigorous, novel research, Science Advances is a very good fit. If you believe it has broader significance (impacts thinking beyond your field), PNAS.
• How selective do you want to be? PNAS is more selective (~12-15% acceptance). Science Advances is more open (~20-30%). If you want higher odds, Science Advances.
• Historical prestige vs. modern impact? PNAS: older, more historically prestigious. Science Advances: newer, rapidly building credibility with better JIF. For career purposes now, Science Advances may be slightly better valued.

Sequential Strategy

Many authors submit to PNAS first (for prestige and selectivity). If desk-rejected or rejected after review, Science Advances is a smart second target. The acceptance rate is higher, so your odds improve. The JIF is slightly better, so it's not a "downgrade."

Alternatively, if you're confident in your work but cautious about extreme selectivity, start with Science Advances. You'll likely get feedback (98% go to review), and acceptance odds are good.

Examples of Good Fits

Science Advances fit:

• Novel mechanistic discovery with solid validation
• Strong interdisciplinary work combining multiple approaches
• Applied research with clear experimental evidence
• Incremental but important advances in a field

PNAS fit:

• Work with societal or policy implications
• Research that bridges multiple disciplines with integrated insights
• Studies with implications for human health or sustainability
• Fundamental discoveries in basic science

Can You Submit to Both?

No—both journals have exclusive submission policies. You must choose one. But sequential submission (after rejection) is standard and expected.

Final Thoughts

Both are excellent journals and legitimate targets for high-quality research. If you're deciding between them: Science Advances is the more accessible option with a higher acceptance rate and better modern impact factor. PNAS carries more historical prestige and may reward work with broader significance. Open access needs? Science Advances. Cost concerns? PNAS. Uncertainty about fit? Science Advances accepts a broader range of solid research, so you have better odds there.

Don't overthink this choice. Both journals will serve your paper well. Pick one, submit, and handle the outcome professionally.