Reference notes
Coverage
57 journals · 17 benchmark fields
Sources
Journal Intelligence Dataset + publisher sources
Last reviewed
February 2026
Prepared by the Manusights editorial team.
Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates: Free Reference Guide (2026)
Biomedical journal acceptance rates are difficult to compare because publishers report them inconsistently and subscription databases rarely expose the underlying context. This page brings those benchmarks together for 57 journals in one searchable reference table.
The dataset combines published journal statistics, editorial transparency reports, and Manusights editorial normalization, with methodology notes preserved where denominators and evidence quality differ.
Updated Feb 2026
Biomedical journal acceptance rates by field
Search and export acceptance-rate ranges, impact factors, and methodology notes for 57 journals across clinical, translational, and basic-science fields. Indicative ranges remain visible where publisher reporting methods are not directly comparable.
Canonical source
This table now projects fully from the Journal Intelligence Dataset, so acceptance-rate rows, field labels, and notes all come from the same maintained source of truth.
⚠️ Important: How Acceptance Rates Are Calculated Varies
Not all journals calculate acceptance rates the same way. Some include desk rejections in the denominator (giving a lower rate). Others report only manuscripts that made it to peer review. A few report per-track rates. This makes direct comparisons between journals imprecise.
Where we know a journal's methodology, we note it in the table. The figures here should be treated as indicative ranges, not exact thresholds. A journal reporting "8%" using all submissions may actually be more competitive than one reporting "15%" counting only reviewed manuscripts.
What Acceptance Rates Actually Tell You
They're not the same as your odds
A 5% acceptance rate doesn't mean you have a 1-in-20 shot. The pool of submitters at top journals includes many manuscripts that were never realistic candidates. If your work genuinely fits the scope and has the right methodological rigor, your effective acceptance rate within that subset is higher.
That said, a 5% rate tells you something real about the competitive bar. It means editors receive roughly 20 manuscripts for every one they publish. Your work doesn't just need to be good; it needs to be significantly better than 19 other good papers.
High rates don't mean easy
Nucleic Acids Research has a ~45% acceptance rate. That doesn't mean it's easy to publish there. It means the journal has a clear scope (nucleic acids and genomics tools) and if your work fits that scope and meets technical standards, it's likely to be accepted. Journals with high rates often have more precise scopes and fewer out-of-scope submissions in the first place.
PLOS ONE's 31% rate reflects a different model entirely: they accept any technically sound science, regardless of perceived impact. The "competition" is against your own methodology, not against other papers.
Use acceptance rates as one filter, not the only one
The most useful exercise is building a tiered shortlist: one reach journal (where you'd be thrilled to publish), one solid match (where your work genuinely fits), and one accessible option (where sound methodology is enough). Acceptance rates help you calibrate those tiers, but they work together with impact factor, scope fit, review timeline, and open access requirements.
For field-specific guidance on how to tier journals and what each tier requires, see the field guides.
Data Sources & Methodology
- • Impact factors: Clarivate Journal Citation Reports, 2024 release
- • Acceptance rates: Individual journal statistics pages, annual reports, and editorial transparency statements published by journals or their parent publishers (Cell Press, Springer Nature, NEJM Group, JAMA Network, BMJ Publishing Group, AHA Journals, ESC Publications, AAAS, PLOS, etc.)
- • Where rates aren't officially published: Estimates synthesized from peer-reviewed analyses of submission patterns (e.g., Ware & Mabe, The STM Report, 4th ed.; Bjork et al., PLOS ONE, 2014) and editor interviews published in Nature, Science, and BMJ. All estimates are marked with "~" in the table.
- • Primary sources (where verifiable): NEJM (nejm.org/author-center/new-manuscripts), Nature Medicine (nature.com/nm/author-instructions), PLOS (journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information), BMJ (bmj.com/about-bmj), Clarivate JCR (jcr.clarivate.com)
- • Last updated: February 2026. Impact factor data updated annually; acceptance rate data updated when journals publish new statistics.
Primary Sources
These are the authoritative sources for acceptance rate and publishing statistics data. Where journals publish their own figures, those take precedence over estimates.
Authoritative source for impact factors. Annual release. Paywall, check via your library.
NEJM publishes submission and acceptance statistics in its author instructions and annual editorial reports.
Nature family journals list acceptance rate context in author guidance pages.
PLOS ONE journal information page includes acceptance rates and publication statistics.
BMJ Group publishes annual data on submissions, desk rejections, and acceptances.
AAAS provides submission statistics for Science and Science Advances.
Version History
February 2026
Re-reviewed acceptance-rate notes, aligned impact factor values to the current JCR baseline, and added exportable dataset utilities.
December 2025
Expanded the benchmark to 57 journals across 8 biomedical fields and added methodology notes for non-comparable publisher reporting methods.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a typical acceptance rate for top biomedical journals?
Acceptance rates vary widely by journal tier. Flagship journals like Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, and Lancet accept 5-10% or fewer of submitted manuscripts. High-impact specialty journals (Nature Medicine, JAMA, Circulation) typically accept 8-15%. Mid-tier specialty journals accept 15-25%. Broad-scope open access journals like PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports accept 40-55%. These figures represent overall acceptance rates - desk rejection rates at top journals can be 60-70%, meaning fewer than one-third of submissions even reach peer review.
How does desk rejection rate differ from acceptance rate?
Desk rejection is when an editor rejects a manuscript before sending it to external reviewers, usually within days of submission. This happens when the scope doesn't fit the journal, the work lacks novelty for that journal's readership, or the manuscript has obvious methodological flaws. At Nature and Cell, desk rejection rates are 60-75%. At NEJM and Lancet, they reach 80-90%. The post-peer-review acceptance rate (papers accepted among those that survive desk review) is therefore much higher than the overall acceptance rate.
Should I target journals where I have the highest chance of acceptance?
Not necessarily. Targeting only high-acceptance journals sacrifices visibility and career impact. The optimal strategy is to submit to the highest-tier journal where your work is genuinely competitive - not the one with the best odds, but the one where your paper fits the scope and novelty bar. A paper rejected from Nature and published in Nature Communications still carries significant weight. A structured pre-submission review of your manuscript can help accurately assess where it is competitive before you commit to a target journal.
Ready to apply this to a real draft?
Move from reference guidance to a manuscript-specific check
Use the public submission-readiness path when you already have a manuscript and need a draft-specific signal, not just a general guide.
Best for researchers who want a fast readiness read before deciding whether to revise, retarget, or submit.
Related guides in this collection
Peer review timelines
Add review-speed expectations to the selectivity picture before you choose where to submit.
Submission specs
Check whether the manuscript can fit the target journal’s format and length constraints.
Reference library
Browse the full benchmark, policy, and submission-reference stack from one parent hub.