ManuSights/Resource Library

Journal intelligence atlas

Journal Intelligence Atlas for biomedical publishing decisions

Explore a broader journal atlas by field, then drop into the deep benchmark records where we have richer selectivity, timing, submission, and editorial-fit intelligence.

Download CSVDownload JSONView methodology

Atlas vs benchmark depth

  • 144 journals are currently represented through field maps and related resource coverage.
  • 57 journals currently have full benchmark-style records with timing, selectivity, submission constraints, and editorial fit notes.
  • The atlas is broader than the benchmark layer, so not every journal currently has the same record depth.
  • This page should help you discover the right field set first, then compare the best-covered titles in detail.

How to interpret the benchmark records

  • Official values come directly from publisher-owned material where available.
  • Reported values reflect public benchmarks or journal-facing sources with attribution.
  • Estimated values are conservative approximations used when stable official figures do not exist.
  • Manusights fit signals and difficulty scores are editorial synthesis, not journal policy.

Browse by field

Start with the broader atlas before comparing deep records.

These field maps cover the wider journal universe across the site. Use them to enter the right part of the landscape first, then come back to the benchmark browser for the best-covered titles.

Clinical Medicine

Top journals for clinical research, trials, and medical practice

Clinical medicine journals sit at the top of the academic publishing pyramid. The top five - NEJM, Lancet, Nature Medicine, JAMA, and BMJ - collectively reject over 95% of submissions. But there's a realistic path through the stack depending on your data quality and career stage.

Coverage in this field

22

atlas journals

15

deep records

Tier 1

  • NEJM
  • Lancet
  • Nature Medicine
  • JAMA
  • GUT
  • Gastroenterology

Tier 1 (NEJM, Lancet, Nature Medicine, JAMA): For practice-changing clinical trials, novel mechanistic insights with therapeutic implications, or major cohort studies. Expect 3-6 months to first decision, 60-80% desk rejection rate. Your cover letter must immediately articulate clinical significance.

Tier 2

  • BMJ
  • Hepatology
  • Blood
  • JCI
  • Science Translational Medicine
  • Lancet Infectious Diseases
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases
  • Allergy
  • Endoscopy
  • Experimental AND Molecular Medicine
  • Ageing Research Reviews
  • Diabetes CARE
  • Trends IN Molecular Medicine

Tier 2 (BMJ): For well-designed clinical studies, systematic reviews, and health policy analyses. More accessible than Tier 1 but still selective. BMJ particularly values work with clear implications for clinical practice guidelines.

Tier 3

  • BMC Medicine
  • PLOS Medicine
  • BMJ OPEN

Tier 3 (PLOS Medicine, BMJ Open): More inclusive peer review, higher acceptance rates. Appropriate for solid clinical research that doesn't meet Tier 1/2 novelty thresholds. BMJ Open publishes across clinical medicine and is fully open access.

Timeline note

NEJM and Lancet: 6-12 weeks to initial decision after peer review. First decision typically 2-4 weeks for desk-rejected manuscripts. JAMA: faster, typically 3-8 weeks to first decision. BMJ: 4-8 weeks to initial decision. PLOS Medicine: 2-4 months.

Open access note

NEJM, Lancet, and JAMA are subscription journals with optional open access (~$3,000-5,000). Nature Medicine offers open access for $11,690. BMJ and PLOS Medicine are fully open access - PLOS Medicine charges $3,500, BMJ Open is free to publish (Gold open access).

Common mistakes

  • Submitting observational studies to NEJM without exceptionally large sample size or novel findings
  • Not clearly stating clinical implications in the cover letter
  • Skipping the 'clinical significance' question editors ask first

For the full field guide, ranking logic, and career-stage notes, open the dedicated field page.

Open Clinical Medicine field guide

Deep benchmark records

Compare the best-covered journals in detail.

These records carry the richer layer: selectivity posture, desk timing, first-decision timing, submission constraints, and Manusights editorial interpretation.

Shortlist building

Use difficulty, desk timing, and fit to narrow the field quickly.

Submission planning

Check package constraints before committing to a sequence.

Manuscript-specific next step

Use fit or readiness tools when the journal profile alone is not enough.

57 of 57 journalsCSV and JSON downloads above
How the dataset is assembled

Field

Search

Sort

Quick views

Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance reportedtiming estimated

New England Journal of Medicine

Difficulty 99

Massachusetts Medical Society

NEJM is an extreme clinical filter focused on practice-changing consequence. Most competent clinical studies are rejected before full review.

Primary fit signal

the manuscript changes clinical practice rather than adding incremental evidence

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

<5%

Desk decision

~21 days

First decision after review

6–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

>90%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the manuscript changes clinical practice rather than adding incremental evidence
  • methods and interpretation can survive intense clinical scrutiny

Common rejection reasons

  • important specialty result without broad practice consequence
  • claims of clinical importance outrun the trial or cohort evidence

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,000

Abstract

Structured · 250

Figures

5 total

References

70

Data provenance

Publisher

Massachusetts Medical Society

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>90% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

The Lancet

Difficulty 99

Elsevier

The Lancet screens hard for broad medical and policy consequence, not only study quality.

Primary fit signal

the paper matters across medicine or public health, not only a subspecialty

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

<5%

Desk decision

21–28 days

First decision after review

6–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

>90%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper matters across medicine or public health, not only a subspecialty
  • the consequence is visible at policy or guideline level

Common rejection reasons

  • good medicine without general-clinical reach
  • regional or narrow impact presented as global consequence

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,000

Abstract

Unstructured summary · 150

Figures

5 total

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

Elsevier

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>90% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Multidisciplinarymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nature

Difficulty 98

Springer Nature

Nature is an extreme breadth-and-significance filter. Most technically strong but narrower papers are rejected at editorial triage before review.

Primary fit signal

cross-disciplinary importance is obvious without explanation theater

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

<8%

Desk decision

~7 days

First decision after review

~8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

>90%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • cross-disciplinary importance is obvious without explanation theater
  • the evidence package feels complete, not suggestive

Common rejection reasons

  • strong but field-bound advance framed as general science
  • headline claim outruns the underlying evidence

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,000 (main text)

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

6 display items

References

50

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>90% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Multidisciplinarymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Science

Difficulty 97

AAAS

Science screens first for broad significance and general scientific consequence, not just technical merit.

Primary fit signal

the result changes how a broad scientific audience thinks

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

<7%

Desk decision

~14 days

First decision after review

8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

>90%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the result changes how a broad scientific audience thinks
  • the framing is concise and accessible outside one specialty

Common rejection reasons

  • excellent but not field-shifting work
  • specialist story with limited cross-disciplinary consequence

Submission package constraints

Main text

~4,500

Abstract

Unstructured · 125

Figures

6–8 display items

References

55

Data provenance

Publisher

AAAS

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>90% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance reportedtiming estimated

JAMA

Difficulty 96

American Medical Association

JAMA behaves as a general medical flagship and rejects many technically strong but too-specialized papers at editorial triage.

Primary fit signal

clinical message is broad-interest and immediately legible

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

<5%

Desk decision

2–3 weeks

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

>90%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • clinical message is broad-interest and immediately legible
  • evidence and framing both look disciplined to general medical editors

Common rejection reasons

  • strong specialty work without general physician relevance
  • overstated implications from exploratory or narrow data

Submission package constraints

Main text

~2,800

Abstract

Structured · 300

Figures

5 total

References

35

Data provenance

Publisher

American Medical Association

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>90% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cell & Molecular Biologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Cell

Difficulty 95

Cell Press

Cell rewards mechanistic completeness and broad biological consequence, and rejects many promising but still-incomplete stories early.

Primary fit signal

the mechanism is both complete and broadly interesting

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

<8%

Desk decision

~14 days

First decision after review

6–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the mechanism is both complete and broadly interesting
  • the paper feels final rather than one experiment short

Common rejection reasons

  • flashy mechanism without enough closure
  • important biology that still feels too narrow or incomplete

Submission package constraints

Main text

~6,000–8,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

7–8 main figures

References

100

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nature Medicine

Difficulty 94

Springer Nature

Nature Medicine is a translational flagship that screens for direct medical importance, not just elegant biology.

Primary fit signal

translational or medical consequence is integral to the main story

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

<8%

Desk decision

~30 days

First decision after review

8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • translational or medical consequence is integral to the main story
  • mechanistic strength and human relevance both carry weight

Common rejection reasons

  • important preclinical work without enough translational force
  • clinical relevance is asserted more than demonstrated

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,000–5,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

6 display items

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Genomics & Methodsmixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nature Biotechnology

Difficulty 94

Springer Nature

Nature Biotechnology screens extremely fast for platform consequence and broad translational or field impact.

Primary fit signal

the platform matters beyond one use case

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

<10%

Desk decision

~4 days

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the platform matters beyond one use case
  • benchmarking proves field-level or translational advantage

Common rejection reasons

  • interesting method without broad platform consequence
  • technical novelty that does not translate into real biotechnology leverage

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Oncologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Cancer Cell

Difficulty 93

Cell Press

Cancer Cell is a fast-triage oncology flagship that expects both conceptual depth and real cancer consequence.

Primary fit signal

oncology consequence and mechanistic depth are both clear

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~8–10%

Desk decision

~5 days

First decision after review

~8 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • oncology consequence and mechanistic depth are both clear
  • the story changes how cancer biologists think, not just one disease niche

Common rejection reasons

  • disease relevance without enough conceptual or mechanistic lift
  • translational excitement unsupported by the evidence package

Submission package constraints

Main text

~6,000–8,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

7 main figures

References

100

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Genomics & Methodsmixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nature Methods

Difficulty 92

Springer Nature

Nature Methods filters for generalizable technical advances and quickly rejects narrowly useful or weakly benchmarked methods papers.

Primary fit signal

the method changes what many labs can do, not just one narrow workflow

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~8–10%

Desk decision

~7 days

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the method changes what many labs can do, not just one narrow workflow
  • benchmarking is strong enough to justify flagship methods positioning

Common rejection reasons

  • clever but narrow method with limited adoption potential
  • weak benchmarking against the real current standard

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Oncologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

The Lancet Oncology

Difficulty 91

Elsevier

Lancet Oncology is a fast-triage oncology flagship prioritizing broad oncology and clinical consequence over narrower specialty impact.

Primary fit signal

oncology consequence is broad enough to matter outside one tumor niche

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~8%

Desk decision

~14 days

First decision after review

4–6 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • oncology consequence is broad enough to matter outside one tumor niche
  • the paper has clear practice, policy, or guideline relevance

Common rejection reasons

  • important oncology result without enough general oncology significance
  • solid trial or translational data that does not justify Lancet-family reach

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,000

Abstract

Structured · 250

Figures

5 total

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

Elsevier

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Immunologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nature Immunology

Difficulty 91

Springer Nature

Nature Immunology triages very fast and rewards broad conceptual immunology, not just excellent specialty work.

Primary fit signal

the immune mechanism is both sharp and broadly field-shaping

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~5–8%

Desk decision

~5 days

First decision after review

6–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

>90%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the immune mechanism is both sharp and broadly field-shaping
  • the conceptual lift is obvious from the first read

Common rejection reasons

  • important immunology result without enough flagship-level conceptual reach
  • mechanistic story that still feels one major step short

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

>90% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Neurosciencemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nature Neuroscience

Difficulty 91

Springer Nature

Nature Neuroscience is a high-bar neuroscience flagship with slower editorial assessment and a premium on both conceptual importance and evidentiary strength.

Primary fit signal

the neuroscience claim feels both field-shaping and robust to skeptical specialist review

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~9%

Desk decision

45–60 days

First decision after review

12–16 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the neuroscience claim feels both field-shaping and robust to skeptical specialist review
  • the paper justifies the journal's longer editorial assessment because the consequence is genuinely high

Common rejection reasons

  • strong neuroscience without enough conceptual lift for Nature Neuroscience
  • headline claim is exciting but the causal or mechanistic support is still too thin

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,500

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

8 display items

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Genomics & Methodsmixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nature Genetics

Difficulty 90

Springer Nature

Nature Genetics is a flagship genetics filter prioritizing broad conceptual significance over merely large or technically competent datasets.

Primary fit signal

the genetics advance is broadly important beyond one cohort or locus

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

<10%

Desk decision

~30 days

First decision after review

8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the genetics advance is broadly important beyond one cohort or locus
  • the work changes how the field thinks about a biological or disease question

Common rejection reasons

  • good genomics data without enough conceptual lift
  • cohort or association story that feels too incremental for flagship genetics

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance reportedtiming reported

The BMJ

Difficulty 90

BMJ

The BMJ is a general medical flagship with strong reporting expectations and a high bar for broad clinical consequence.

Primary fit signal

the paper has broad general-medical or public-health value

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~7% overall; ~4% research

Desk decision

Days to 2 weeks

First decision after review

~48 days with review

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper has broad general-medical or public-health value
  • methods and reporting are strong enough for a flagship general medical readership

Common rejection reasons

  • good clinical paper without enough broad BMJ-level consequence
  • strong specialty study framed too narrowly for a general medical venue

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,400

Abstract

Structured · 300

Figures

6 total

References

40

Data provenance

Publisher

BMJ

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Neurosciencemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Lancet Neurology

Difficulty 89

Elsevier

Lancet Neurology is a premier neurology journal with rapid triage and a very high bar for field-wide clinical or translational consequence.

Primary fit signal

the paper matters to neurology practice or field-wide neurologic thinking, not only one neuroscience niche

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~10%

Desk decision

2–4 weeks

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper matters to neurology practice or field-wide neurologic thinking, not only one neuroscience niche
  • clinical-translational relevance is unmistakable from the first screen

Common rejection reasons

  • good neurology research without enough broad specialty consequence for a Lancet title
  • bench-heavy story with weaker clinical or neurologic practice relevance than advertised

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,000

Abstract

Structured · 250

Figures

5 total

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

Elsevier

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cell & Molecular Biologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Cell Metabolism

Difficulty 88

Cell Press

Cell Metabolism behaves like a metabolism flagship that expects both conceptual breadth and strong mechanistic support.

Primary fit signal

metabolic consequence and mechanistic depth are both strong

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~5–8%

Desk decision

3–7 days

First decision after review

9–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

>80%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • metabolic consequence and mechanistic depth are both strong
  • the paper matters broadly across metabolism, not one assay niche

Common rejection reasons

  • important physiology without enough mechanistic closure
  • good metabolism story that is too narrow for the journal's breadth bar

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

>80% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Immunologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Immunity

Difficulty 88

Cell Press

Immunity triages extremely fast and prizes broad conceptual immunology rather than narrow specialist advances.

Primary fit signal

the immune mechanism is broad, clear, and conceptually important

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~8–10%

Desk decision

3–5 days

First decision after review

3–4 weeks

Desk reject posture

~75%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the immune mechanism is broad, clear, and conceptually important
  • the study changes how immunologists think about a real question

Common rejection reasons

  • good immunology without enough conceptual breadth
  • important phenotype but insufficient mechanistic closure

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~75% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Neurosciencemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Neuron

Difficulty 86

Cell Press

Neuron triages very quickly and rewards broad, conceptually important neuroscience rather than narrow subfield advances.

Primary fit signal

the neuroscience consequence is broad and conceptually strong

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~8%

Desk decision

3–5 days

First decision after review

4–5 weeks

Desk reject posture

~75%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the neuroscience consequence is broad and conceptually strong
  • the story survives beyond one model system or one narrow circuit niche

Common rejection reasons

  • good neuroscience without enough broad conceptual reach
  • important phenotype with insufficient mechanistic support

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~75% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Infectious Diseasesmixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Lancet Infectious Diseases

Difficulty 86

Elsevier

Lancet Infectious Diseases is a high-selectivity specialty flagship that screens hard for broad infectious-disease consequence and clear clinical or public-health relevance.

Primary fit signal

the study has obvious infectious-disease or global-health consequence beyond a narrow pathogen story

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~12%

Desk decision

2–4 weeks

First decision after review

6–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the study has obvious infectious-disease or global-health consequence beyond a narrow pathogen story
  • the paper carries enough policy, clinical, or epidemiologic relevance for a Lancet specialty title

Common rejection reasons

  • important infectious-disease data without enough broad consequence for the Lancet family
  • regional or mechanistic interest presented as field-wide or global-health importance

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,000

Abstract

Structured · 250

Figures

5 total

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

Elsevier

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cardiologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

JACC

Difficulty 85

American College of Cardiology

JACC is highly selective and screens first for broad cardiovascular importance and clinical consequence.

Primary fit signal

the study matters to practicing cardiologists at a broad level

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~5%

Desk decision

14–21 days

First decision after review

4–6 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the study matters to practicing cardiologists at a broad level
  • clinical or translational force is clear enough for a premier society journal

Common rejection reasons

  • good cardiovascular research without enough flagship consequence
  • overly narrow subfield appeal for a broad cardiology readership

Submission package constraints

Main text

~5,000

Abstract

Structured · 300

Figures

7 total

References

100

Data provenance

Publisher

American College of Cardiology

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cardiologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Circulation

Difficulty 84

American Heart Association

Circulation combines fast triage with a flagship-cardiology significance bar and quickly filters out narrow work.

Primary fit signal

cardiovascular consequence is broad and timely

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~7%

Desk decision

~7 days

First decision after review

4–6 weeks

Desk reject posture

~70%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • cardiovascular consequence is broad and timely
  • the story justifies flagship-cardiology positioning

Common rejection reasons

  • incremental cardiovascular advance
  • subspecialty result without enough broad cardiology consequence

Submission package constraints

Main text

~4,000

Abstract

Structured · 250

Figures

6 total

References

75

Data provenance

Publisher

American Heart Association

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

~70% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Oncologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

JAMA Oncology

Difficulty 83

American Medical Association

JAMA Oncology screens for broad oncology relevance and rejects many technically solid but more limited specialty papers.

Primary fit signal

the manuscript has clear oncology-practice relevance

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~8%

Desk decision

~21 days

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

>85%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the manuscript has clear oncology-practice relevance
  • the framing is broad enough for a top network oncology title

Common rejection reasons

  • strong oncology data without enough broad clinical consequence
  • specialty significance that is better suited to a narrower oncology journal

Submission package constraints

Main text

~2,800

Abstract

Structured · 300

Figures

5 total

References

35

Data provenance

Publisher

American Medical Association

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

>85% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Translational Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Science Translational Medicine

Difficulty 83

AAAS

Science Translational Medicine is a selective translational journal that rewards credible bench-to-bedside consequence rather than generic translational branding.

Primary fit signal

the paper truly bridges bench and bedside instead of only borrowing translational language

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~15%

Desk decision

4–8 weeks total

First decision after review

8–14 weeks

Desk reject posture

~75%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper truly bridges bench and bedside instead of only borrowing translational language
  • human or near-clinical consequence is visible in the evidence package

Common rejection reasons

  • strong basic science with weaker translational traction than the framing suggests
  • translational claim is real but still too early or under-supported for the journal

Submission package constraints

Main text

~4,500

Abstract

Structured · 225

Figures

8 display items

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

AAAS

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~75% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Oncologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Difficulty 82

ASCO

JCO is selective but more clinically practical than oncology flagships, rewarding papers that matter directly to oncology practice.

Primary fit signal

clinical relevance is strong enough to matter to oncologists broadly

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~15%

Desk decision

~30 days

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

~70%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • clinical relevance is strong enough to matter to oncologists broadly
  • the manuscript is framed around practice or care implications

Common rejection reasons

  • good oncology data without enough field-wide clinical consequence
  • specialty-only impact better suited to a narrower journal

Submission package constraints

Main text

~4,000

Abstract

Structured · 250

Figures

5 total

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

ASCO

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

~70% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cardiologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

European Heart Journal

Difficulty 82

Oxford University Press / ESC

EHJ is a flagship cardiology venue with rapid triage and a broad-cardiology significance bar.

Primary fit signal

cardiology-wide relevance is obvious from the first screen

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~10%

Desk decision

~10 days

First decision after review

4–6 weeks

Desk reject posture

~75%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • cardiology-wide relevance is obvious from the first screen
  • the paper has enough consequence to justify flagship society-journal positioning

Common rejection reasons

  • solid cardiovascular work that is too narrow for a flagship audience
  • specialist significance presented as field-wide importance

Submission package constraints

Main text

~4,000

Abstract

Structured · 250

Figures

6 total

References

50

Data provenance

Publisher

Oxford University Press / ESC

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

~75% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Structural Biologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

Difficulty 82

Springer Nature

Nature Structural & Molecular Biology is selective about conceptual payoff and rejects many technically strong structure papers that do not change the biology enough.

Primary fit signal

the structural insight changes biological understanding rather than adding a narrower structure report

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~12%

Desk decision

30–45 days total

First decision after review

8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

>80%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the structural insight changes biological understanding rather than adding a narrower structure report
  • the molecular story is both technically strong and conceptually meaningful

Common rejection reasons

  • high-quality structure without enough broader biological consequence
  • mechanistic story remains too incremental for a Nature specialty title

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

6 display items

References

50

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

>80% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cardiologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

JAMA Cardiology

Difficulty 81

American Medical Association

JAMA Cardiology is a fast-triage clinical-cardiology journal that rewards broad practice relevance and disciplined general-medical framing.

Primary fit signal

the manuscript matters to clinical cardiology, not just one research niche

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~8%

Desk decision

14–21 days

First decision after review

4–6 weeks

Desk reject posture

~80%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the manuscript matters to clinical cardiology, not just one research niche
  • the result is concise, generalizable, and legible to the broader JAMA Network audience

Common rejection reasons

  • good cardiovascular paper without enough practice relevance for JAMA Cardiology
  • subspecialty framing that is too narrow for a general-cardiology clinical readership

Submission package constraints

Main text

~2,800

Abstract

Structured · 300

Figures

5 total

References

35

Data provenance

Publisher

American Medical Association

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~80% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Stem Cell Biologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Cell Stem Cell

Difficulty 80

Cell Press

Cell Stem Cell is a selective Cell Press venue that expects both conceptual weight and a very complete evidence package.

Primary fit signal

the paper changes how stem-cell or regenerative-biology people think, not just one technical corner

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~10%

Desk decision

30–45 days total

First decision after review

8–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

~75%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper changes how stem-cell or regenerative-biology people think, not just one technical corner
  • mechanistic confidence and disease or developmental relevance are both visible

Common rejection reasons

  • flashy regenerative angle without enough mechanistic depth
  • incremental stem-cell story positioned as a major conceptual shift

Submission package constraints

Main text

~5,000–7,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

7 main figures

References

100

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~75% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cell & Molecular Biologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Molecular Cell

Difficulty 79

Cell Press

Molecular Cell values mechanistic depth plus conceptual reach and is more selective than specialty molecular journals but less broad than Cell.

Primary fit signal

mechanistic novelty is strong enough to matter beyond one narrow niche

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~13%

Desk decision

3–5 days

First decision after review

3–4 weeks

Desk reject posture

~60%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • mechanistic novelty is strong enough to matter beyond one narrow niche
  • the paper changes how a molecular process is understood

Common rejection reasons

  • good molecular mechanism without enough conceptual breadth
  • specialist depth that feels too narrow for the journal's scope

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~60% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Microbiologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Cell Host & Microbe

Difficulty 78

Cell Press

Cell Host & Microbe is a mechanistic host-pathogen journal with real Cell Press selectivity and a strong preference for complete conceptual stories.

Primary fit signal

the host-pathogen mechanism is sharp enough to matter beyond one organism-specific niche

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~12%

Desk decision

30–45 days total

First decision after review

8–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

~75%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the host-pathogen mechanism is sharp enough to matter beyond one organism-specific niche
  • the story feels complete enough for a Cell Press microbiology venue, not just promising

Common rejection reasons

  • descriptive infection biology without enough mechanistic closure
  • interesting pathogen story that feels too narrow for the journal's conceptual bar

Submission package constraints

Main text

~5,000–7,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

7 main figures

References

100

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~75% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Chemical Biologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nature Chemical Biology

Difficulty 78

Springer Nature

Nature Chemical Biology is selective about true chemical-biology identity and filters out papers that lean too far toward either pure chemistry or pure biology alone.

Primary fit signal

the chemistry changes a biological question rather than decorating it

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~15%

Desk decision

30–45 days total

First decision after review

8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

>75%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the chemistry changes a biological question rather than decorating it
  • the story feels genuinely chemical-biology in identity, not just chemistry applied to biology

Common rejection reasons

  • good chemistry or good biology, but the integration between them is weak
  • tool or probe paper without enough conceptual biological consequence

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

6 display items

References

50

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

>75% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

GUT

Difficulty 77

BMJ

GUT is a selective BMJ specialty flagship that filters for broadly important gastroenterology and hepatology work.

Primary fit signal

the paper has broad GI or hepatology relevance and strong execution

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~12%

Desk decision

~14 days

First decision after review

~5 weeks

Desk reject posture

~70%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper has broad GI or hepatology relevance and strong execution
  • the advance is important enough to matter across the specialty

Common rejection reasons

  • well-done GI study without enough flagship-specialty consequence
  • too narrow a subfield story for the journal's broad readership

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

BMJ

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~70% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Multidisciplinarymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nature Communications

Difficulty 76

Springer Nature

Nature Communications has a lower breadth threshold than flagship Nature titles but remains a real professional-editor novelty filter.

Primary fit signal

the study is novel and complete even if not Nature-level broad

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~20%

Desk decision

~9 days

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

~50%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the study is novel and complete even if not Nature-level broad
  • scope is still wide enough for a large multidisciplinary OA venue

Common rejection reasons

  • sound but too incremental for the venue's novelty bar
  • good specialty paper without enough broader interest

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

~50% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Gastroenterology

Difficulty 76

AGA / Elsevier

Gastroenterology is a flagship GI journal with fairly fast triage and a meaningful breadth bar inside the specialty.

Primary fit signal

the paper matters broadly across GI rather than one narrow disease lane

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~12%

Desk decision

~14 days

First decision after review

5–7 weeks

Desk reject posture

~70%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper matters broadly across GI rather than one narrow disease lane
  • mechanistic or clinical relevance is strong enough for a flagship specialty journal

Common rejection reasons

  • good GI work that is too narrow or incremental for flagship specialty treatment
  • important result without enough breadth for the journal's readership

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

AGA / Elsevier

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~70% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Journal of Clinical Investigation

Difficulty 74

American Society for Clinical Investigation

JCI values disease-oriented mechanistic work and filters out papers that are either too basic for disease relevance or too clinical for mechanistic depth.

Primary fit signal

mechanistic disease relevance is strong enough to matter clinically

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~8–10%

Desk decision

2–4 weeks

First decision after review

6–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

~70%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • mechanistic disease relevance is strong enough to matter clinically
  • the manuscript connects biology and disease convincingly

Common rejection reasons

  • good mechanism without enough disease consequence
  • clinical framing that is weaker than the underlying basic science

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

American Society for Clinical Investigation

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~70% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cardiologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Circulation Research

Difficulty 74

American Heart Association

Circulation Research is a selective cardiovascular journal that rewards mechanistic depth and translational cardiovascular relevance more than raw prestige signaling.

Primary fit signal

the paper has clear cardiovascular-mechanism relevance and not just one narrow model-system result

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~10%

Desk decision

21–35 days

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

~70%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper has clear cardiovascular-mechanism relevance and not just one narrow model-system result
  • basic or translational framing maps cleanly onto the journal's cardiovascular audience

Common rejection reasons

  • strong biology that is not clearly cardiovascular enough
  • translational claims exceed what the mechanistic package can support

Submission package constraints

Main text

~5,000

Abstract

Structured · 250

Figures

6 total

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

American Heart Association

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~70% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Multidisciplinarymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Science Advances

Difficulty 73

AAAS

Science Advances is a selective AAAS OA venue with a lower breadth bar than Science but still a real general-science filter.

Primary fit signal

the paper has broad scientific interest without needing Science-level field-shifting force

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~10%

Desk decision

1–3 weeks

First decision after review

6–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

~60%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper has broad scientific interest without needing Science-level field-shifting force
  • the story is strong, technically clean, and general enough for a high-end OA multidisciplinary venue

Common rejection reasons

  • specialist work without enough broad readership value
  • sound study that still does not clear the journal's novelty bar

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

AAAS

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~60% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Blood

Difficulty 72

American Society of Hematology

Blood is a flagship hematology journal with a meaningful but not impossible selectivity bar, rewarding studies that matter broadly across hematology.

Primary fit signal

hematology relevance is broad and not limited to one narrow disease niche

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~20%

Desk decision

~30 days

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

~60%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • hematology relevance is broad and not limited to one narrow disease niche
  • the paper is rigorous enough for a flagship society journal even if not NEJM-tier

Common rejection reasons

  • narrow hematology story without enough field-wide importance
  • good data but not enough novelty or practice consequence for Blood

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

American Society of Hematology

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~60% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Multidisciplinarymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

PNAS

Difficulty 71

National Academy of Sciences

PNAS sits below Nature and Science in breadth selectivity but still expects clear cross-field importance rather than purely specialist merit.

Primary fit signal

the paper has broad enough scientific interest for a general-science venue without needing Nature/Science-level reach

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~15%

Desk decision

~45 days total

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

~50%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper has broad enough scientific interest for a general-science venue without needing Nature/Science-level reach
  • the story is important beyond one subfield but still realistic for PNAS

Common rejection reasons

  • specialist work that never escapes its disciplinary silo
  • broad framing that is not matched by the underlying consequence

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

National Academy of Sciences

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~50% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Psychiatrymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Molecular Psychiatry

Difficulty 71

Springer Nature

Molecular Psychiatry sits at the psychiatry-neuroscience interface and rewards papers with both mechanistic credibility and clear psychiatric relevance.

Primary fit signal

the paper connects neuroscience or genetics to psychiatry in a way that feels clinically or conceptually durable

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~12%

Desk decision

45–60 days total

First decision after review

10–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

~65%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper connects neuroscience or genetics to psychiatry in a way that feels clinically or conceptually durable
  • human relevance is visible rather than purely implied

Common rejection reasons

  • interesting neuroscience with weak psychiatric consequence
  • association-heavy story without enough mechanistic or translational force

Submission package constraints

Main text

~4,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 200

Figures

6 total

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~65% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Hepatology

Difficulty 69

AASLD / Wiley

Hepatology is a flagship liver journal with meaningful selectivity but a more accessible bar than general medical flagships.

Primary fit signal

the paper matters to hepatology broadly rather than a single liver niche

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~15%

Desk decision

~30 days

First decision after review

6–8 weeks

Desk reject posture

~65%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper matters to hepatology broadly rather than a single liver niche
  • clinical or mechanistic relevance is clear enough for a specialty flagship

Common rejection reasons

  • good liver-focused study without enough broad specialty consequence
  • solid data but not enough selectivity-level novelty or importance

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

AASLD / Wiley

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~65% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Neurosciencemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Brain

Difficulty 68

Oxford University Press

Brain is a selective clinical-neuroscience journal that tolerates slower timelines in exchange for rigorous editorial screening and broad neurologic relevance.

Primary fit signal

the paper has real clinical-neurology or translational consequence rather than only a narrow mechanistic result

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~15%

Desk decision

6–8 weeks total

First decision after review

10–14 weeks

Desk reject posture

~65%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper has real clinical-neurology or translational consequence rather than only a narrow mechanistic result
  • the evidence package is careful enough to survive a slower, more thorough editorial process

Common rejection reasons

  • solid neuroscience without enough clinical or translational consequence for Brain
  • claims of disease relevance outrun what the data actually establish

Submission package constraints

Main text

~4,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 250

Figures

6 total

References

60

Data provenance

Publisher

Oxford University Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~65% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Genomics & Methodsmixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Genome Biology

Difficulty 66

Springer Nature / BMC

Genome Biology is a strong OA genomics venue that remains selective on utility, conceptual lift, and field-wide value.

Primary fit signal

the genomics contribution is broadly useful and not just dataset-sized

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~15%

Desk decision

30–45 days total

First decision after review

8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

~55%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the genomics contribution is broadly useful and not just dataset-sized
  • methods, benchmarking, or biological insight are strong enough for a leading OA genomics venue

Common rejection reasons

  • large genomics paper without enough conceptual or practical lift
  • resource or methods angle is weaker than the journal's best lanes require

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature / BMC

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~55% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cell & Molecular Biologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Cell Reports

Difficulty 63

Cell Press

Cell Reports is a broad Cell Press OA venue with fast triage and a real completeness bar, but a lower breadth threshold than flagship Cell.

Primary fit signal

the study is complete and biologically useful even if not Cell-level broad

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~15–20%

Desk decision

~5 days

First decision after review

5–7 weeks

Desk reject posture

~50%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the study is complete and biologically useful even if not Cell-level broad
  • the story is mechanistically coherent and decision-ready

Common rejection reasons

  • incremental story without enough novelty even for the tier-2 level
  • solid result that still looks incomplete

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~50% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cell & Molecular Biologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

The EMBO Journal

Difficulty 62

EMBO Press

The EMBO Journal is a respected mechanistic biology venue with real selectivity, rewarding complete stories more than hype.

Primary fit signal

the manuscript has a mature molecular or cell-biology story with real mechanistic closure

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~15%

Desk decision

4–6 weeks total

First decision after review

8–14 weeks

Desk reject posture

~65%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the manuscript has a mature molecular or cell-biology story with real mechanistic closure
  • the work can carry an EMBO audience without needing Cell-tier breadth

Common rejection reasons

  • sound molecular biology that still feels one decisive experiment short
  • incremental mechanism presented as a field-moving advance

Submission package constraints

Main text

~7,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 200

Figures

7 main figures

References

100

Data provenance

Publisher

EMBO Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~65% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Developmental Biologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Developmental Cell

Difficulty 61

Cell Press

Developmental Cell is a selective Cell Press journal that sits below the flagship tier but still expects mechanistic completeness and a clear developmental concept.

Primary fit signal

the developmental mechanism is clean, complete, and interesting beyond one phenotype description

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~18%

Desk decision

30–45 days total

First decision after review

8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

~65%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the developmental mechanism is clean, complete, and interesting beyond one phenotype description
  • the paper feels like a real developmental-cell story rather than a narrower specialty report

Common rejection reasons

  • developmental biology that is descriptive but not mechanistically decisive
  • organism-specific result without enough broader conceptual payoff

Submission package constraints

Main text

~5,000–7,000

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

7 main figures

References

100

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~65% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Genomics & Methodsmixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Nucleic Acids Research

Difficulty 58

Oxford University Press

NAR is more accessible than flagship genetics or methods venues, especially for strong methods and resource papers, but still expects clear utility and good fit to its strongest editorial lanes.

Primary fit signal

the paper fits a strong NAR lane such as methods, databases, or nucleic-acid biology

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~45%

Desk decision

~45 days total

First decision after review

6–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

~40%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper fits a strong NAR lane such as methods, databases, or nucleic-acid biology
  • the manuscript is practical and well documented enough for a resource- and methods-friendly venue

Common rejection reasons

  • research article framed as more general than the journal's strongest lanes support
  • resource or methods paper without enough utility or documentation

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Oxford University Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~40% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

PLOS Medicine

Difficulty 58

PLOS

PLOS Medicine is a selective OA medicine journal with a broad clinical and public-health scope, rewarding rigor and consequence more than prestige theater.

Primary fit signal

the paper has real clinical or public-health consequence and fits an open-access general-medicine audience

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~15%

Desk decision

6–8 weeks total

First decision after review

10–14 weeks

Desk reject posture

~50%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper has real clinical or public-health consequence and fits an open-access general-medicine audience
  • methods and transparency are strong enough to support broad medical trust

Common rejection reasons

  • important clinical study without enough public-health or general-medicine consequence
  • open-access framing cannot rescue a paper with weak reporting or limited impact

Submission package constraints

Main text

~3,000

Abstract

Structured · 300

Figures

5 total

References

50

Data provenance

Publisher

PLOS

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~50% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

BMC Medicine

Difficulty 57

Springer Nature / BMC

BMC Medicine is a general-medicine OA journal with real selectivity but a lower consequence bar than top medical flagships.

Primary fit signal

the paper is clinically relevant and broad enough for a serious general-medicine OA venue

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~20%

Desk decision

30–45 days total

First decision after review

8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

~45%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper is clinically relevant and broad enough for a serious general-medicine OA venue
  • the work has wider interest even if not BMJ or JAMA tier

Common rejection reasons

  • clinical study too narrow for a general-medicine readership
  • solid study with insufficient lift for a flagship OA medicine journal

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature / BMC

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~45% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Cell & Molecular Biologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Current Biology

Difficulty 48

Cell Press

Current Biology is broader and less selective than top Cell Press titles, but it still rewards clear conceptual interest and clean narrative packaging.

Primary fit signal

the result is interesting and well-packaged even if it does not need a flagship Cell Press venue

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~35%

Desk decision

30–45 days total

First decision after review

6–10 weeks

Desk reject posture

~40%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the result is interesting and well-packaged even if it does not need a flagship Cell Press venue
  • the story fits the journal's broad-biology and report-friendly format

Common rejection reasons

  • paper is technically sound but not interesting enough even for Current Biology's broader filter
  • story is too incomplete or too specialized to justify Cell Press positioning

Submission package constraints

Main text

~4,500

Abstract

Unstructured · 150

Figures

6 main figures

References

50

Data provenance

Publisher

Cell Press

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~40% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Life Sciencesmixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming reported

eLife

Difficulty 44

eLife Sciences Publications

eLife is an open-review life-sciences venue with a distinct editorial model: public reviews, flexible format, and a meaningful but not flagship-style novelty bar.

Primary fit signal

the paper is strong enough to benefit from public review and transparent editorial assessment

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~15%

Desk decision

~30 days

First decision after review

10–16 weeks

Desk reject posture

~50%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper is strong enough to benefit from public review and transparent editorial assessment
  • authors value rigor and openness more than legacy prestige signaling

Common rejection reasons

  • story is too thin even for a public-review model
  • methods or claims are not strong enough to support open expert scrutiny

Submission package constraints

Main text

No strict limit

Abstract

Unstructured · No strict limit

Figures

No strict limit

References

No strict limit

Data provenance

Publisher

eLife Sciences Publications

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~50% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Neurosciencemixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Journal of Neuroscience

Difficulty 43

Society for Neuroscience

Journal of Neuroscience is more accessible than top-tier neuroscience journals, but it still expects solid methodology and a clearly worthwhile neuroscience question.

Primary fit signal

the study is methodologically rigorous even if it does not need a flagship neuroscience venue

OA model

Hybrid

Acceptance posture

~25%

Desk decision

45–60 days total

First decision after review

8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

~40%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the study is methodologically rigorous even if it does not need a flagship neuroscience venue
  • the neuroscience question is clear and the evidence is complete enough for a society journal audience

Common rejection reasons

  • insufficient rigor or underpowered experiments despite a more accessible selectivity bar
  • story is too incremental or not clearly meaningful to a broad neuroscience readership

Submission package constraints

Main text

~10,000

Abstract

Structured · 250

Figures

10 total

References

No strict limit

Data provenance

Publisher

Society for Neuroscience

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~40% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Multidisciplinarymedium confidenceacceptance reportedtiming reported

PLOS ONE

Difficulty 41

PLOS

PLOS ONE is a soundness-first OA venue with a much lower novelty bar than prestige journals, but still a real rigor and reporting filter.

Primary fit signal

methods and reporting are clean enough for a soundness-based venue

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~31%

Desk decision

~40 days total

First decision after review

8–12 weeks

Desk reject posture

~30%

Sources reviewed

4

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • methods and reporting are clean enough for a soundness-based venue
  • the paper is framed around validity rather than prestige signaling

Common rejection reasons

  • methods or reporting problems that still fail a soundness bar
  • unsupported claims or weak transparency

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

PLOS

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

4 public sources

Desk reject posture

~30% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Immunologymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Frontiers in Immunology

Difficulty 38

Frontiers

Frontiers in Immunology is a broad OA immunology venue with collaborative review and a materially lower novelty threshold than top-tier immunology journals.

Primary fit signal

the study is technically solid and clearly within section scope

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~40%

Desk decision

~80 days total

First decision after review

12–16 weeks

Desk reject posture

~30%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the study is technically solid and clearly within section scope
  • authors are optimizing for soundness and visibility rather than prestige filtering

Common rejection reasons

  • section mismatch or weak specialty framing
  • methods or evidence gaps that fail even a soundness-oriented review model

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Frontiers

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~30% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Clinical Medicinemedium confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming reported

BMJ Open

Difficulty 36

BMJ

BMJ Open is a broad soundness-oriented clinical OA journal with slower timelines and a lower novelty threshold than BMJ.

Primary fit signal

the paper is sound, well reported, and appropriate for a broad clinical OA venue

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~27%

Desk decision

~134 days total

First decision after review

16–20 weeks

Desk reject posture

~30%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the paper is sound, well reported, and appropriate for a broad clinical OA venue
  • the team is prioritizing rigor and accessibility over prestige filtering

Common rejection reasons

  • methods or reporting weaknesses that fail a soundness-first review model
  • scope mismatch or unclear manuscript value despite adequate methods

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

BMJ

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~30% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology
Multidisciplinarymixed confidenceacceptance estimatedtiming estimated

Scientific Reports

Difficulty 34

Springer Nature

Scientific Reports is a high-volume OA venue with a lower novelty threshold than flagships, but it still rejects weakly supported or poorly reported work.

Primary fit signal

the study is technically sound and publishable even without prestige-tier novelty

OA model

Gold OA

Acceptance posture

~57%

Desk decision

~120 days total

First decision after review

14–20 weeks

Desk reject posture

~20%

Sources reviewed

3

Open full journal recordReviewed Mar 30, 2026

What gets in

  • the study is technically sound and publishable even without prestige-tier novelty
  • authors are making a realistic reach-versus-selectivity tradeoff

Common rejection reasons

  • weak methods or unsupported claims even in a lower-selectivity venue
  • sloppy reporting that undermines trust in otherwise sound work

Submission package constraints

Main text

Not standardized

Abstract

Not standardized

Figures

Not standardized

References

Not standardized

Data provenance

Publisher

Springer Nature

Version

2026.03.30-mvp1

Sources reviewed

3 public sources

Desk reject posture

~20% (estimated)

Version 2026.03.30-mvp1See methodology

Related views

Explore the same dataset through narrower views

Acceptance rate, review timing, and submission requirements remain useful on their own. These views pull out the same underlying questions with less comparison overhead.

Peer Review Timelines by Journal

Use the timeline view when review speed is the main question.

Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates

Use the acceptance-rate view when selectivity is the main question.

Journal Submission Specs

Use the submission-spec view when formatting and package constraints are the bottleneck.

Use with care

This is decision support, not a substitute for reading the live journal instructions

Public journal data is uneven. Some values here are official, some are public reported benchmarks, and some are cautious estimates. The Manusights difficulty score and fit signals are editorial synthesis, not official journal metrics.

Use this page to narrow the choice set. Then use Journal-Fit Check or Submission-Readiness Check when the decision has to be manuscript-specific.

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.

Run submission-readiness checkSee sample report
Public pathHow manuscript handling works

Related guides in this collection

Peer Review Timelines by Journal

Use the timeline view when review speed is the main question.

Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates

Use the acceptance-rate view when selectivity is the main question.

Journal Submission Specs

Use the submission-spec view when formatting and package constraints are the bottleneck.

Reference library →Journal-Fit Check →