All Journal Guides

Journal Guide

Nature Impact Factor 48.5: Publishing Guide

Nature demands field-shifting significance, not just excellent science. Your finding must change how the field thinks.

48.5

Impact Factor (2024)

<8%

Acceptance Rate

7 days median to first decision

Time to First Decision

What Nature Publishes

Nature is the oldest and most cited multidisciplinary scientific journal in the world, founded in 1869. With an impact factor above 48 and over 200 million annual downloads, it publishes research of outstanding significance across all scientific disciplines. The editorial bar is not 'excellent science' - it is 'science that changes how the field thinks.' Nature editors routinely reject technically flawless papers because the findings, while correct and interesting, don't represent the kind of conceptual advance the journal exists to publish. If your paper would not be discussed across departments and disciplines - if only specialists in your exact subfield would find it important - Nature is the wrong target, and a Nature family journal will serve your work better.

  • Research that changes how scientists understand a fundamental process - not incremental improvements but genuine conceptual advances that reframe existing knowledge
  • Findings with implications across multiple scientific disciplines: a discovery that matters to physicists, biologists, and chemists simultaneously, not just one field
  • Landmark methodological breakthroughs that enable entirely new classes of experiments or measurements - CRISPR, cryo-EM resolution improvements, single-cell sequencing at scale
  • Studies addressing major unsolved problems in science where the answer has been uncertain for decades and the resolution is unambiguous
  • Work that will generate broader public and scientific discourse beyond specialist circles, including policy implications or fundamental questions about life, matter, or the universe

Editor Insight

Nature's editors are looking for papers that will be read and cited across disciplines for decades. The question is not 'is this good science?' but 'will this change how scientists think?' If your work only advances a narrow subfield, consider whether a more specialized journal might give it better visibility among the people who can actually use it.

What Nature Editors Look For

Field-shifting significance, not just excellent science

Nature's standard is not technical excellence - it is conceptual advance. Your finding should change how scientists think about a problem: not 'we found another example of X' but 'we discovered that X actually works this way, overturning what everyone assumed.' If your contribution is to confirm an existing model with better data, it belongs in a specialty journal. If it overturns the model, Nature is the right venue.

Broad interdisciplinary appeal

A physicist, biologist, and chemist should all find something interesting in your paper. If only specialists in your exact subfield care - if only people who already work on FOXO3a phosphorylation would appreciate the significance - then Nature family journals (Nature Cell Biology, Nature Chemistry, etc.) are better fits. The flagship journal requires genuine cross-disciplinary relevance.

Narrative accessibility for non-specialists

Nature editors are PhD scientists but not specialists in your field. Your abstract and introduction must hook a curious, scientifically literate non-specialist in the first paragraph. Think newspaper article structure: start with the question and its importance, then the finding, then the method. Not thesis structure: background, literature review, objectives, methods, results.

Complete, unrevisable story

Nature wants finished science, not promising preliminary observations. Every experiment a reviewer might suggest - 'but did you validate this in vivo?', 'but did you test the loss-of-function phenotype?', 'but what's the structural basis?' - should already be in the paper. If you are still running key experiments, you are not ready to submit. Incomplete stories produce major revision requests that can add 12-18 months to the timeline.

Methodological rigor with no shortcuts

Your methods will be scrutinized by reviewers from adjacent fields who may not be specialists but who know experimental standards. Every control must be present and explained. Every statistical test must be appropriate. Every potential confound must be addressed or acknowledged. Hiding weak data in supplementary materials hoping reviewers won't look is a strategy that consistently backfires.

Timeliness and positioning in the field

Why now? Your paper must connect to an active scientific conversation where the question is live and the answer is contested. If a related paper was published recently, you need a clear articulation of what your work adds that wasn't already shown. If the field feels settled to editors, even technically superior work may fail to generate enthusiasm.

Why Papers Get Rejected

These patterns appear repeatedly in manuscripts that don't make it past Nature's editorial review:

Claiming field-changing significance for incremental work

Editors receive thousands of papers claiming to 'revolutionize' or 'transform' their field. They have excellent calibration for the actual significance of findings relative to the existing literature. Overselling damages credibility and signals poor scientific judgment. An accurate, specific description of what you found and why it matters is more persuasive than inflated significance claims.

Writing for specialists rather than broad scientists

If your abstract requires a PhD in your exact subfield to understand, it will not survive initial editorial screening. Nature editors are scientifically trained generalists. Write as if explaining to a smart colleague in a completely different department. If they cannot grasp the significance in the first paragraph, the paper will not advance.

Leading with methods or background instead of the finding

Nature editors spend 5-10 minutes on an initial assessment. If your paper opens with two paragraphs of background before stating what you found, you have lost the editor before they reach your key result. The opening sentence or two should state what you discovered and why it matters.

Writing a generic cover letter

The cover letter is your pitch to the editor. A generic letter that doesn't explain why this work belongs in Nature (vs. a specialty journal), what assumption it overturns, and which community of scientists will care is a missed opportunity. Write the cover letter as if it is the paper's trailer - it should make the editor want to read the manuscript.

Submitting before the story is complete

If you know reviewers will ask 'but did you test X in vivo?' or 'but what is the mechanism?' and you haven't done that experiment, you are not ready. Nature's revision process is long - 324 days median from submission to acceptance. Adding experiments during revision extends this further. Submit when the paper is complete, not when you are tired of working on it.

Ignoring the Nature family as an alternative

Many papers rejected from Nature would have been accepted at Nature Cell Biology, Nature Chemistry, Nature Communications, or another family journal. If your work is outstanding within a discipline but lacks the cross-disciplinary appeal of the flagship, a family journal gives you Nature publisher branding, similar rigor, and often better field visibility. Don't treat Nature family as a fallback - treat it as the correct venue.

Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?

The quick diagnostic reads your full manuscript against Nature's criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.

Run Free Readiness Scan →

Insider Tips from Nature Authors

Use the presubmission inquiry - it is not optional for most papers

A presubmission inquiry lets you gauge editor interest before spending weeks on formatting. Send a 1-page pitch: the question, why it is unsolved, your main finding, and 1-2 key figures. About 25% of inquiries are encouraged to submit. This saves you time if the fit isn't right and signals to the editor that your paper is coming if they express interest.

Your first paragraph determines the editorial outcome

Editors form first impressions from your opening paragraph. Start with the question you answered and why it matters, not background. 'Despite decades of research, X remains poorly understood' is the wrong opening. 'We show that X actually works via Y, overturning the assumption that Z' is the right opening. If the significance isn't clear in the first 100 words, the paper is at risk.

The 7-day median first decision is real - and usually a desk rejection

Nature decides fast. Most of those 7-day decisions are desk rejections, not acceptances. If you receive a desk rejection quickly, it reflects a scope or significance mismatch - not necessarily poor science. Consider whether a Nature family journal is the right home and resubmit with a revised framing rather than appealing the Nature decision.

Reviewers are specifically asked about significance, not just validity

Unlike specialty journals where peer reviewers mainly assess technical soundness, Nature reviewers are explicitly asked: 'Is this work of sufficient significance for publication in Nature?' Technical perfection is necessary but not sufficient. A methodologically flawless paper can be rejected if reviewers don't believe the finding is Nature-caliber.

The median submission-to-acceptance is 324 days - plan accordingly

If accepted, the process takes nearly a year from initial submission. This matters for grant reporting, job applications, and tenure timelines. Factor this into your decision about when to submit. Papers submitted just before a job application cycle may not appear in time to help.

Open access at Nature costs $12,290

Nature's Article Processing Charge for gold open access is among the highest in academic publishing - $12,290 USD as of 2024. Many institutions have Springer Nature read-and-publish agreements that cover this. Check before submitting if your funder or institution requires immediate open access. The paper can also be posted as a preprint immediately at submission without any APC.

The Nature cascade to family journals is a legitimate pathway

If Nature desk-rejects your paper, they may suggest a transfer to Nature Communications, Nature Cell Biology, or another family journal. This is not a consolation prize - it is an editorial judgment that the work is excellent but better suited to a specific field. These journals share reviewer comments, which can significantly accelerate review at the new journal.

Supplementary materials are reviewed as rigorously as main text

Do not hide weak data, incomplete controls, or borderline statistics in supplementary materials. Reviewers and editors read supplements as carefully as main text. Everything in your paper - Methods, Extended Data, Supplementary Information - must meet the same standard as your main results.

The Nature Submission Process

1

Presubmission inquiry (strongly recommended)

Response within 1-2 weeks

Submit a 1-page pitch via the Nature submission portal: the scientific question, why it is unresolved, your key finding, and 1-2 representative figures. The handling editor will respond within 1-2 weeks indicating whether a full submission is appropriate. This step is especially valuable for unusual methodological approaches or cross-disciplinary papers where scope fit is uncertain.

2

Full manuscript submission

Submission to editorial decision: ~7 days

Submit via the Nature submission portal. Prepare a complete manuscript: Article format (3,000-word main text, Methods section separate from main word count, up to 6 display items in main text, Extended Data figures for additional data, Supplementary Information for raw data and code). Cover letter must explain what assumption the work overturns and why the finding has broad scientific significance. Suggest 4-5 reviewers with institutional affiliations and emails; note specific conflicts to exclude.

3

Editorial assessment and desk decision

7 days median; may be faster or up to 2 weeks

A senior editor with broad expertise in your area assesses the significance, novelty, and scope fit. Approximately 70% of submissions are desk rejected. Common desk rejection reasons: insufficient significance for Nature's standard, better fit in a specialty journal, overlap with recently published work, or missing key experiments. Desk accepted papers are sent for peer review; some editors request specific revisions before sending to review.

4

Peer review

4-8 weeks

Typically 2-3 reviewers selected for expertise in both the specific field and adjacent areas. Reviewers are asked explicitly to assess both technical validity and whether the significance warrants Nature publication. Reviews tend to be detailed and demanding. Expect requests for additional experiments, not just manuscript revisions. First review round typically takes 4-8 weeks after reviewer assignment.

5

Revision and further review

Revision periods vary; median submission to acceptance 324 days

Most papers require at least one major revision involving additional experiments. Revision periods can be 6-12 months if new experiments are needed. Resubmitted revisions typically go back to the same reviewers. Multiple revision rounds are common for high-impact papers. The editorial team is available to discuss scope of required revisions before you commit to them.

6

Acceptance and publication

1-2 weeks from acceptance to online publication

Accepted papers are published online within 1-2 weeks of final acceptance after proof approval. High-profile papers may receive an Accelerated Article Preview (preprint-style posting before formal publication) and press embargo coordination. Nature provides press release assistance for papers with broad public interest. Final published papers are indexed in PubMed within days.

Nature by the Numbers

2024 Impact Factor(Clarivate JCR 2024)48.5
5-Year Impact Factor55.0
CiteScore (Scopus)97.0
Submissions per year~11,000
Overall acceptance rate<8%
Desk rejection rate~70%
Post-review acceptance~40% of reviewed manuscripts
Median first decision(Fastest of any major multidisciplinary journal)7 days
Median submission to acceptance324 days
Open access APC(Among highest in academic publishing; institutional agreements may cover)$12,290 USD
Annual downloads205M+
Founded(Published by Springer Nature (formerly Macmillan))1869
ISSN0028-0836

Before you submit

Nature accepts a small fraction of submissions. Make your attempt count.

The pre-submission diagnostic runs a live literature search, scores your manuscript section by section, and gives you a prioritized fix list calibrated to Nature. ~30 minutes.

Article Types

Article

~3,000 words main text; Methods separate

The primary research format since 2019 (formerly split between Articles and Letters). Complete, substantial research reports with broad significance. Methods section does not count toward main text word limit. Up to 6 display items in main text; additional data in Extended Data (up to 10 items) and Supplementary Information.

Brief Communication

~1,500 words, 2-3 display items

Short reports of unusual urgency or significance where the finding is important but the evidence is focused. Less common than Articles. Must still demonstrate Nature-level significance in compressed form.

Review Article

Variable; typically 5,000-8,000 words

Authoritative synthesis of a major scientific field or question - almost always invited. Unsolicited reviews are occasionally considered if they represent a major new framework or the definitive treatment of an emerging area. Contact the editor before writing an unsolicited review.

Matters Arising

~500 words

Technical comments on a previously published Nature paper, with a right of reply from the original authors. Requires significant new data or analysis demonstrating a flaw or important qualification in the original work. Not an opinion piece.

Landmark Nature Papers

Papers that defined fields and changed science:

  • Watson and Crick's DNA double helix structure (1953) - one of the most cited papers in history
  • Discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica (Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin, 1985)
  • First cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep (Wilmut et al., 1997)
  • Human genome draft sequence (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2001)
  • Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold (Jumper et al., 2021) - transformed structural biology

Preparing a Nature Submission?

Get pre-submission feedback from reviewers who've published in Nature and know exactly what editors look for.

Run Free Readiness Scan

Need expert depth? Human review from $1,000

NDA-protected
Confidential

Primary Fields

Life Sciences and BiologyPhysical SciencesEarth and Environmental SciencesChemistryMaterials ScienceNeuroscienceGenomics and GeneticsInterdisciplinary and Cross-cutting Research