I did a quick analysis based on WoS information, comparing the three journals mentioned above (SA, NC, PNAS). As of now (May 2018), looking at the median number of citations of papers published in 2015, 2016, and 2017, it looks like SA falls approximately in between NC (which scores slightly higher) and PNAS (which scores slightly lower). The same goes when you look at the top 10 percentile scores. There is also some evidence that SA is slightly on the rise (scores for 2017 papers actually fall just above NC), but obviously the time window is still very short.

In any case, based on this it seems likely that the SA IF will be approximately where they expected it to be (10 or slightly higher).

Hi Sammy!

Since the impact factor of the journal has not yet determined, it's hard to tell. But it should be comparable with open access journals like PlosOne and Scientific Report. The publication fee of $4000 is not really fair.

The publication fee for Nature Communications is also unreasonably high ($5200) but it takes advantage of its name! I think if sb has really done a great multidisciplinary work, he will publish it in Nature or Science. Otherwise, it is better to publish in more specialised journal

Hi Sammy,

How do you define a good journal? its IF, its rejection/acceptation ratio, or the transparency and speed of its review process? How easilly the public can access to its studies? (this last one being my personal definition of a journal quality). Scientifically speaking, they are all three great journals but have all their own weakness. First of all they are all open access journals so that is an excellent start!!

I know that for a young scientist the IF is (sadly) the most important point. That will define how easily you may have fundings and potentially your future position as well... and unfortunatly our whole system is sick with it. (But it may eventually change with the younger generations). I do think Science advances will receive its first IF this summer, so we'll know soon enought about it.

But you should keep in mind that just as its citations number is not a reflection of a paper's quality, the IF is not really an indication of a journal's excellence. I have found terrible papers in Nature and Science Advances as well as in PLoS One. I have also found great papers in the three!

Sorry I did not help you very much.

Hi Sammy,

as already said it is hard to tell since the journal would receive the first impact factor (2 -year IF) this summer only.

So far, many great manuscripts have been published on Science Advances (also look at the astonishing number of citations received by some of the early published articles). Likely many good papers that don't end up in Science will be published in SciAdv (as happens for Nature-Nature Communication).

So, we would expect a relatively high impact factor (that’s what SciAdv is aiming for). Bear in mind that 2- and 5-year impact factor can be quite different depending on the field of study and how “fast” the field is moving (let’s say, just as an approximate example, molecular biology “fast” vs theoretical physics “slow”) .

In a “fast-moving” field we would expect papers to come out quite quickly, and recent papers being cited more rapidly (overall, there would be a rapid turnover: 2-year IF similar to 5-year IF) than in a “slow-advancing” field (slow turnover 5-year IF > 2-year IF)

I agree also that the IF, despite been essential for getting funded during the early stages (and not only) of your career, is not the only metric to judge a journal. Getting published in a very high impact factor journal is not just a matter of having done a great research, it (mainly) depend if and which potential broader public would be interested in your piece of work and if it is appropriate for the journal. I have read both great articles and mediocre ones in many journals with a stellar (peak IFs) reputation.

However, I think comparison with other open access journals as PlosOne and SciRep cannot be really made, and fees is a different point. PlosOne and Scientific Reposts are great multidisciplinary journals and open access (which is great). SciAdv is expected to be a very good open access journal and since early issues it has been very selective on the published articles.

Fees is a completely different point that should not be used for comparing journals. They SHOULD depend on how efficiently the whole editorial/publication systems works, open access options, print vs online publication only, maximum and effective article length, size f the editorial board etc... (and, yes, the IF of the journal)... too many factors to make any significant inference. There are high IF journals (i.e Ecology Letters, ~9.8) which have no publication fees or high ones as Nature Communication (3.300£!), but this does not reflect at all the depth and breadth of a journal's "quality".

We submitted our paper to Science in 2014, and after 2 rounds of reviews, they offered to transfer our paper to Science Advances without any publication fee. So we published in Science Advances without paying anything!

From my communication with an Associate Editor of the journal in February 2017, the estimated Impact Factor for Science Advances was in the low two digits (such as 10, 11, 12, 13 ...) **at that time**. Time will tell ... And from this link: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/02/aaas-announces-open-access-journal.html

“Science Advances would aspire to uphold editorial standards on a par with journals such as Nature Communications or PNAS [not open access], in terms of the quality of papers,” says Marcia McNutt, the editor-in-chief of Science.

So far, many papers, published in 2015, are very well-cited. You may get an idea about the citations of the papers published in Science Advances in 2015, from the following link:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=sW_AUSYAAAAJ&hl=en

I think the journal will get an Impact Factor in Summer 2018.

I did a quick analysis based on WoS information, comparing the three journals mentioned above (SA, NC, PNAS). As of now (May 2018), looking at the median number of citations of papers published in 2015, 2016, and 2017, it looks like SA falls approximately in between NC (which scores slightly higher) and PNAS (which scores slightly lower). The same goes when you look at the top 10 percentile scores. There is also some evidence that SA is slightly on the rise (scores for 2017 papers actually fall just above NC), but obviously the time window is still very short.

In any case, based on this it seems likely that the SA IF will be approximately where they expected it to be (10 or slightly higher).

I estimated the 2 year impact factor based on looking at how many citations the papers have been getting with google scholar from 2016-2017. Then I compared these numbers to other journals (with known impact factors) that publish similar numbers of papers. It’s crude but it gives an idea.

I think the impact factor will be over 11.

It seems to be 11.06 based on scopus CiteScore 2017 just published

Best regards

Pierre

Hi Sammy and all!

As has been mentioned by others here, the IF will probably be pretty high. I dont think Sci Adv should be compared to plos one or sci rep etc, as these are production journals. They charge less, but also but little to no work into editorial work, have pretty lax standard, dont care much about spelling, figure quality grammar etc. I think these journals in fact charge a *lot* more than e.g. Sci Adv per unit work they put into a paper.

I published in Nat Comms a few years ago, and was happy with that experience. However, they publish ten times more papers than Sci Adv at the moment, and the journal is part of the massive Springer-Nature publishing house. As such, revenue is the main aim. AAAS also have a few journals now, beyond Science, but the number is still limited, they are highly selective, and I think they might have less of a commercial angle over all.

All in all, I think Sci Adv will be a great journal with high visibility and high standards.

i was on their editorial board for a while. I think their standards are high and their staff are quite good. I would usually recommend journals published by scientific societies like AAAS over those from for-profit publishing houses.

Hi Dear Scientists,

Is it possible to publish a review article in science advances. Could anybody tell the acceptance rate of the Sci Adv.

Thanks

Hello,

The Acceptance Rate of Science Advances was 16%, announced in the email I got from the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February 2017 - please see the attached image in the next response. You may find other information about the Science Advances journal in the attached file as well. 

Hope that helps. 

Please find the attachment related to the previous comment.

Impact factor of 11 and change. I published one paper with them and it was a positive experience overall, especially early in the publication process (fairly quick reviews, good reviews from qualified reviewers). The production process was a bit chaotic and unnecessarially confusing, and the 4,000 dollar printing costs seem exhorbitant. Excellent Open Access policies.

It seems to be 12.804 based on Clarivate Analytics CiteScore for 2018.

Kind regards, Anton