How long does Nature Genetics take to review?

Nature Genetics typically takes ~30 days to first decision. The full review process involves 6 main stages: presubmission inquiry (recommended for unusual designs), full manuscript submission, and peer review.

How much does it cost to publish in Nature Genetics?

Nature Genetics charges ~$11,690 USD as an article processing charge. Institutional Springer Nature agreements may cover

All Journal Guides

Journal Guide

Nature Genetics Impact Factor 29.0: Publishing Guide

Q: What is the impact factor of Nature Genetics?

Nature Genetics has an impact factor of 29.0 (2024). This places it among the top-tier journals in its field with Nature Genetics is the premier journal for genetics and genomics research, with an impact factor above 29 and a reputation as the default destination for landmark human genetic discoveries.

Q: What is the acceptance rate of Nature Genetics?

Nature Genetics has an acceptance rate of <10%. A common reason for rejection is underpowered studies in a field of massive consortia. Genetic effect sizes for common complex traits are small. An underpowered study that reports associations at p<5e-8 but with effect sizes that would require much larger N to be stable will be identified by reviewers immediately. Know the expected effect sizes in your phenotype and calculate whether your sample size is competitive. If you have 500 cases where the standard is 5,000, consider joining a consortium rather than submitting independently.

Q: Is Nature Genetics peer reviewed?

Yes, Nature Genetics is fully peer reviewed. All submissions undergo rigorous peer review by 2-4 reviewers selected for statistical genetics expertise, functional genomics expertise, and domain knowledge in the relevant biology or disease area. Reviewers will independently assess your statistical methods, power calculations, population structure correction, replication strategy, and the biological interpretation of your findings. Expect detailed methodological comments - reviewers at Nature Genetics routinely re-examine QQ plots, Manhattan plots, and colocalization analyses..

Q: What does Nature Genetics look for in submissions?

Scale and statistical power - know the competition: Nature Genetics publishes large studies. For GWAS, effective sample sizes in the tens or hundreds of thousands are now standard. If you have 2,000 cases, someone in a consortium has 50,000. Before submitting, check what the largest published study in your phenotype is and what is on bioRxiv. Your study needs either larger scale, a more precise phenotype, a diverse ancestry that wasn't studied before, or functional follow-up that larger but shallower studies lack.

Q: What should I know before submitting to Nature Genetics?

Check bioRxiv before submitting - the competition is there. In genetics, major consortium papers frequently appear on bioRxiv months before journal submission. If a group with 10x your sample size has a preprint on the same phenotype, you need to either move very fast or reframe your contribution around what your study offers that theirs does not - typically functional depth, a specific population, or a mechanistic story.

The definitive home for genetic and genomic discovery: from GWAS to functional mechanism

29.0

Impact Factor (2024)

<10%

Acceptance Rate

~30 days to first decision

Time to First Decision

What Nature Genetics Publishes

Nature Genetics is the premier journal for genetics and genomics research, with an impact factor above 29 and a reputation as the default destination for landmark human genetic discoveries. Founded in 1992 and published by Springer Nature, it publishes large-scale GWAS, whole-genome sequencing studies, new genomic technologies, functional genomics, and epigenomics research where the findings have major implications for our understanding of biology or human disease. The journal's standard is not 'excellent genetic study' but 'genetic discovery that changes how the field understands a biological process or disease mechanism.' Sample size arms races are real in this space - if you have 5,000 cases for a GWAS, a consortium likely has 50,000. Know the competition before you submit, and make sure your paper has a functional or mechanistic story that larger studies without your follow-up cannot replicate.

Large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing studies in human populations, particularly those achieving adequate power to detect common and rare variant associations with robust replication
Functional characterization of genetic variants - fine-mapping, colocalization with gene expression, CRISPR-based functional validation, and mechanistic studies explaining how non-coding variants affect gene regulation and disease biology
New genomic technologies and analytical methods that enable previously impossible studies: improved imputation methods, polygenic score frameworks, multi-ancestry genetic architectures, or long-read sequencing applications
Population genetics with major biological or evolutionary implications: natural selection signatures, admixture patterns, archaic introgression, or demographic histories that illuminate human biology
Gene regulation and epigenomics at scale: chromatin accessibility, histone modification landscapes, DNA methylation patterns, and 3D genome organization studied in disease-relevant cell types
Cancer genomics characterizing somatic mutation landscapes, clonal evolution, mutational signatures, driver gene identification, and tumor-normal evolutionary dynamics across cancer types
Single-cell multi-omics revealing cell-type-specific genetic effects, gene regulatory networks, and developmental trajectories in human tissues

Editor Insight

“Nature Genetics wants genetic discoveries that matter beyond the locus list. Fifty new GWAS hits is a description, not a discovery. The papers that succeed show what those variants do biologically, which genes they regulate in which cell types, and what that means for understanding disease.”

What Nature Genetics Editors Look For

Scale and statistical power - know the competition

Nature Genetics publishes large studies. For GWAS, effective sample sizes in the tens or hundreds of thousands are now standard. If you have 2,000 cases, someone in a consortium has 50,000. Before submitting, check what the largest published study in your phenotype is and what is on bioRxiv. Your study needs either larger scale, a more precise phenotype, a diverse ancestry that wasn't studied before, or functional follow-up that larger but shallower studies lack.

Functional interpretation beyond association

Finding that variant rs123456 associates with disease Y is the starting point, not the conclusion. Nature Genetics wants to know what the variant does biologically: which gene does it regulate, in which cell type, through what mechanism? Functional follow-up - CRISPR validation, expression QTL colocalization, chromatin accessibility mapping, protein interaction studies - substantially increases the strength of a GWAS submission. Pure association papers need to be massive in scale to succeed without functional data.

Ancestry diversity - European-only is increasingly insufficient

The field has recognized that European-ancestry dominance in genetics creates gaps in generalizability and misses variants at different frequencies in other populations. Nature Genetics actively prioritizes studies that include diverse ancestries, or that are specifically focused on African, Asian, Latino, or South Asian populations. European-only GWAS face both scientific scrutiny about generalizability and a tougher editorial bar unless the manuscript clearly explains why the population choice is justified.

Methodological rigor in statistical genetics

Nature Genetics reviewers include statistical geneticists who will scrutinize your methods in detail: population stratification correction (PCA is not sufficient for all designs), LD clumping and fine-mapping approach, multiple testing correction thresholds, handling of related individuals, and replication strategy. Every methodological decision needs justification. If you are not expert in statistical genetics, collaborate with someone who is before submitting.

Replication in an independent cohort

Discovery without independent replication is insufficient for most Nature Genetics submissions. Cross-validation within the same dataset is not the same as replication. An independent cohort, ideally from a different institution or country, substantially strengthens the credibility of your findings. For rare variants or small effect sizes, replication in a second cohort is critical. For very large studies where replication is impractical, internal validation metrics must be thorough.

Complete, transparent data sharing

Nature Genetics requires deposition of GWAS summary statistics in public databases (GWAS Catalog, GWAS-SSF format), code availability in a public repository (GitHub), and individual-level data deposition where consent allows (dbGaP, EGA). Papers that restrict data sharing without strong justification face editorial resistance. If your data cannot be shared due to consent limitations, you must document this clearly and make the maximum possible data available.

Why Papers Get Rejected

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

Underpowered studies in a field of massive consortia

Genetic effect sizes for common complex traits are small. An underpowered study that reports associations at p<5e-8 but with effect sizes that would require much larger N to be stable will be identified by reviewers immediately. Know the expected effect sizes in your phenotype and calculate whether your sample size is competitive. If you have 500 cases where the standard is 5,000, consider joining a consortium rather than submitting independently.

Pure association without any functional insight

Nature Genetics editors increasingly expect more than a list of new GWAS loci. 'We identified 47 novel loci for X' without any investigation of what those loci do biologically or which genes they regulate is a description, not a discovery. Either include functional follow-up for the top loci or partner with a functional genomics group to add this layer before submission.

Ignoring or inadequately correcting for population stratification

Population stratification is the most common source of false-positive associations in GWAS. PCA with 10 principal components is no longer sufficient for large or admixed cohorts - reviewers expect ADMIXTURE analysis, local ancestry correction where appropriate, and validation that your association results are not driven by ancestry differences. Include your genomic inflation factor (lambda) and QQ plots.

Presenting European-only results as generalizable

Claiming that your findings apply to 'humans' or 'patients' when your study is 95% European-ancestry participants is a major editorial concern. Either include diverse ancestries in your primary analysis, perform multi-ancestry meta-analysis, or explicitly limit your conclusions to the populations studied. Reviewers and editors will not accept over-generalization of European GWAS findings.

Inadequate or non-public data sharing

Nature Genetics data sharing expectations are enforced at acceptance. GWAS summary statistics must be deposited in the GWAS Catalog or equivalent. Code must be in a public GitHub repository with sufficient documentation to run. Individual-level data that can be shared under consent must be in a controlled-access repository. Papers accepted pending data deposition will not be published until deposition is confirmed.

Submitting cancer genomics that only catalogs mutations

The era of pure mutational cataloging in cancer genomics has passed. TCGA and ICGC have comprehensively profiled most major cancer types. A Nature Genetics cancer genomics paper now needs to go beyond listing driver genes or mutational signatures - it needs to show functional consequences, therapeutic implications, evolutionary dynamics, or a new analytical framework that reveals previously invisible biology.

Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?

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

Run Free Readiness Scan →

Insider Tips from Nature Genetics Authors

Check bioRxiv before submitting - the competition is there

In genetics, major consortium papers frequently appear on bioRxiv months before journal submission. If a group with 10x your sample size has a preprint on the same phenotype, you need to either move very fast or reframe your contribution around what your study offers that theirs does not - typically functional depth, a specific population, or a mechanistic story.

Functional follow-up can substitute for larger scale

A GWAS with 5,000 cases and detailed functional characterization of the top loci can compete with a 50,000-case GWAS that has no functional data. CRISPR validation, chromatin accessibility in disease-relevant cell types, eQTL colocalization, and protein interaction studies add the mechanistic layer that pure association studies lack. This is increasingly the pathway for smaller groups to publish in Nature Genetics.

Non-European ancestry studies have preferential consideration

Studies in underrepresented populations - African, East Asian, South Asian, Latino, Indigenous - address a genuine scientific and ethical gap in genetics. Nature Genetics editors view these studies favorably even at smaller sample sizes than would be required for European-ancestry studies, because the population-specific variants and linkage disequilibrium patterns offer information unavailable elsewhere.

Methods papers have an independent pathway

If you have developed a new statistical method for genetic analysis - better polygenic score methods, improved fine-mapping algorithms, new tools for multi-ancestry meta-analysis, or novel single-cell integration approaches - Nature Genetics publishes methodology as first-class content. The method must be validated, benchmarked against existing approaches, and provide meaningful improvement, with code fully available.

UK Biobank analyses are extremely competitive

UK Biobank has enabled hundreds of high-powered GWAS across thousands of phenotypes. Nature Genetics editors have seen enormous numbers of UKB papers and the bar for novelty is high. If your paper uses UKB, make sure your contribution is more than a well-powered replication of known associations - new phenotypes, novel analytical approaches, functional integration, or multi-ancestry extension substantially differentiate UKB submissions.

Single-cell genomics papers need biological insight

Single-cell RNA-seq, ATAC-seq, and multi-omic technologies are generating Nature Genetics papers regularly, but the bar is technical excellence plus biological insight. A scRNA-seq atlas of a tissue that doesn't reveal new cell types, developmental trajectories, or disease-relevant gene programs is likely insufficient. The technology must enable a discovery, not just generate data.

The Nature Genetics cascade connects to Genome Research and other journals

Papers desk rejected from Nature Genetics are sometimes referred to Genome Biology, Genome Research, or Cell Genomics. These are strong journals for genetics - a paper appropriate for Genome Research will be seen by the genetics community that matters. Accept transfers graciously rather than reformatting for another top journal submission.

Pre-register analysis plans for genetic epidemiology

For observational genetic epidemiology - Mendelian randomization, PheWAS, gene-environment interaction studies - pre-registration of analysis plans in the OSF or a similar registry strengthens credibility. Nature Genetics editors are attentive to the risk of hypothesis generation being presented as hypothesis testing in large biobank analyses.

The Nature Genetics Submission Process

Presubmission inquiry (recommended for unusual designs)

Response within 1-2 weeks

Useful if your study design is unusual, if you have a methodology paper rather than a discovery paper, or if you are unsure whether your scale is competitive for Nature Genetics vs. Genome Research or Cell Genomics. Include a brief description of the phenotype, study design, key findings, sample size, and functional follow-up. Editors respond within 1-2 weeks.

Full manuscript submission

Day 1

Submit through the Nature Genetics submission portal. Prepare a complete manuscript including: thorough Methods with all statistical approaches described in detail, Data Availability Statement with accession numbers for all deposited data, Code Availability Statement with GitHub repository link, and a cover letter that explains the novelty, scale, and functional significance of your findings. Suggest 4-5 reviewers with expertise in statistical genetics, functional genomics, and the disease/phenotype area.

Editorial assessment

2-3 weeks

Editors with genetics expertise assess novelty, scale, scope fit, and functional depth. About 50% of submissions are desk rejected. Common rejection reasons: sample size insufficient relative to current standards, pure association without functional insight, European-only data presented as generalizable, inadequate data sharing plan, or insufficient novelty relative to published work. Papers appropriate for specialty journals may be redirected to Genome Research, Genome Biology, or Cell Genomics.

Peer review

4-8 weeks after reviewer assignment

2-4 reviewers selected for statistical genetics expertise, functional genomics expertise, and domain knowledge in the relevant biology or disease area. Reviewers will independently assess your statistical methods, power calculations, population structure correction, replication strategy, and the biological interpretation of your findings. Expect detailed methodological comments - reviewers at Nature Genetics routinely re-examine QQ plots, Manhattan plots, and colocalization analyses.

Revision

Variable; 2-12 months depending on required additional work

Additional analyses are frequently requested: fine-mapping of specific loci, colocalization with expression data in specific tissues, replication in an independent cohort, or functional validation experiments. Computational additional analyses are typically feasible within 2-3 months. Wet lab validation requiring new experiments may take 6-12 months. Editors will specify which requested experiments are required vs. optional before you commit to revising.

Acceptance and data deposition

2-3 weeks from confirmed deposition to online publication

Acceptance is conditional on completed data deposition - GWAS summary statistics in the GWAS Catalog, code in a public GitHub repository, and individual-level data in dbGaP or EGA where applicable. Editorial staff verify deposition before final publication confirmation. Online publication typically within 2-3 weeks of confirmed deposition.

Nature Genetics by the Numbers

2024 Impact Factor(Clarivate JCR 2024)	29.0
CiteScore (Scopus)	52.0
Submissions per year	~2,500
Overall acceptance rate	<10%
Desk rejection rate	~50%
Post-review acceptance	~50% of reviewed manuscripts
Time to first decision	~30 days
Publication frequency	Monthly, 12 issues/year
Open access APC(Institutional Springer Nature agreements may cover)	~$11,690 USD
Founded(Springer Nature)	1992
ISSN	1061-4036

Before you submit

Nature Genetics 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 Genetics. ~30 minutes.

Run Free Readiness Scan See a sample report

Article Types

Article

~5,000 words main text; Methods separate

Full research reports of major genetic and genomic studies. The primary content type. Includes large GWAS, sequencing studies, functional genomics investigations, and multi-level studies. Methods section does not count toward main text word limit. Extended Data figures can accommodate detailed supplementary analyses.

Brief Communication

~2,000-3,000 words

Shorter reports of significant focused findings - appropriate for a specific high-impact association, a targeted functional validation, or a focused methodological advance. Same significance standard as Articles but compressed format.

Resource

Variable

Reference datasets, variant databases, expression atlases, annotation tools, and genomic resources that enable future research. The resource must be publicly accessible and the paper must derive substantial biological insights from it, not merely describe its creation.

Analysis

~4,000-5,000 words

Novel analysis of existing public datasets that reveals new biological insights - re-analysis of TCGA data with new methods, integration of multiple GWAS with new analytical frameworks, or meta-analysis of existing cohorts. The analytical approach must be genuinely new and the insights must justify Nature Genetics publication.

Landmark Nature Genetics Papers

Papers that defined fields and changed science:

First large-scale GWAS for type 2 diabetes, BMI, and height (Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, 2007)
UK Biobank phenome-wide association studies revealing thousands of disease associations (multiple 2018-2024)
ENCODE Project chromatin state maps and regulatory element catalogues (2012, 2020)
Cancer genome characterization - TCGA pan-cancer atlas (2018, comprehensive driver identification across 33 cancer types)
Human Cell Atlas single-cell transcriptomic maps of human organs and tissues (ongoing 2017-present)

Preparing a Nature Genetics Submission?

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

Run Free Readiness Scan

Need expert depth? Human review from $1,000

NDA-protected

Confidential

Primary Fields

Human Genetics and GenomicsStatistical Genetics and Genetic EpidemiologyFunctional Genomics and Gene RegulationCancer GenomicsPopulation Genetics and Evolutionary GenomicsEpigenomics and Chromatin BiologySingle-Cell Genomics and Multi-OmicsRare Disease GeneticsPharmacogenomics

Related Journal Guides

All journal guides

All articles

Compare Journals

Nature Family: Choosing the Right Journal

Ready to submit to Nature Genetics?

A desk rejection costs months. Get expert feedback before you submit, from scientists who know exactly what Nature Genetics editors look for.

Need field-expert depth? Human review from $1,000