Scientists’ top impact-factor journals are Science and Nature. I myself never thought I’d have a paper published in such journals. Until I did. Bruh! Hey yo! Mic dropped.
If you’re in academia, I believe aiming for high-quality venues is a good thing. In other words, I don't think it is right if someone keeps saying “impact factor isn’t everything” and yet can only publish weak papers? I’ve seen plenty of those people, and such people who are good at making excuses nicely are also good at making fancy "brand" for their research and convince people that their research is worth investing. For me struggling to get a good position in academia, it is a bit of bullshitish. Of course I know that the impact factor isn’t everything. Saying aloud "I aim for the high impact journals" sounds like a worldly and inhumane activity possibly. Knowing such vibes in academia, it is hard to speak up to invite people to try hard to do so. But what moves forward the modern science and technology is a high quality work and it is one of the most tangible way to aim for publishing your papers in Science or Nature in my opinion.I know I am being cocky. "complaining about never having published in Science or Nature when you never tried? That’s pathetic. " Super cocky. I am sorry. But what I wanted to say, and what I want to convince, even if my post pisses someone off, is that you can also do it 100%. The idea that “only the big names can publish in Nature or Science, you need political power, you need connections” — that’s a viewpoint with 100% harms. It’s plainly false. If you have such people around you, you might think “scientist, yet starting a baseless conspiracy theory”. Publishing in Science / Nature draws attention, and it lets you level-up in many ways. Of course, there’s some luck required, and yes, knowing an editor helps a little. But even if you exchange business cards with an editor, you may still get a “desk reject”. I’ve experienced it myself. (After publishing my papers in Nature and Science, an editor approached me (not from me, from her/him!) and she/he told me that I can reach them out or choose her/him to be the editor. I did exactly what they told me to do, and my paper got immediately rejected!) Meanwhile, when I submitted my first Nature / Science, I didn’t know any editor, our lab wasn’t large at all — yet I passed. This part is severe but fair.
There are several topics that I want to cover, but in this post, I would mainly discuss on presentation quality. There are a certain level of quality expected from Nature or Science. The beauty of the Figures, the Intro, the Abstract text — your manuscript has to be great, good is not enough, compared to all the existing papers in the world, because they need the best papers. The simple but the most effective method is to compare your best paper (or the best paper in your research group) and see if your current manuscript is better or not.
The cover letter, abstract, and the title are the three biggest items that determine your papers in the first round. I believe editors only glance at a manuscript for a moment when deciding desk-reject vs. not. More than 90% probably get immediate desk rejection in Nature or Science. So take great care with the Title. Carefully select necessary words and tickle what’s going to resonate. Another important criteria is your concept riding the current trend. Can you convincingly say you’re moving modern science forward, even a little bit? Yes — that feeling of being ahead is important. Personally, I’m the type who wants to make the title witty but my collaborators always don't appreciate it, basically saying don't be a smug by being witty. the most important thing is conciseness and readability. More than clever phrasing, you want to make it straightforwardly clear: “High-quality, important”. Apologies for the macho tone, but again, it has to be great, not just good.
