-
The 2026-2027 MD School Specific Threads are now live in the School Specific Discussions forum. The 2025-2026 cycle threads can be found here. -
Scholarship Access: Becoming a Student Doctor course
Free access to comprehensive medical school prep. Eligible students include AAMC FAP recipients and HS graduates from underserved areas. Apply today.
Nature or NEJM
Started by Endoxifen
If you don't publish in the New England JAMA of Natural Science it doesn't count
First author of course
First author of course
isn't NEJM the highest impact journal of all by a huge margin like 1.5x beyond nature or science or jama or lancet or any others
Yes, but NEJM articles are typically cited by clinical articles while Nature articles are more likely to be cited by basic/translational articles, and since there are so many more clinical articles being output each year, all of which have a ton of references, you're going to see an extremely high IF. JAMA and Nature actually have very similar impact factors (just under 40) while NEJM is just under 60. Lancet is 44. Not that it really matters at that stage though; trying to say which of NEJM and Nature is better is like trying to pick between Harvard and Stanford. They're a little different, but you can't go wrong with either.
One of my advisor's post-docs once made a joke journal called the "Journal of Bulgarian Soil Science", with the front page article being on an N-terminal point mutation in the phosphofructokinase of Candida maltosa in the soil of one dude's cow farm. He apparently went distributing it around campus. What a beautiful man.
NEJM has an IF of around 44 and Nature is in the 30s. However, NEJM is a clinical journal which means that it's a lot easier to get smaller publications done. Whether NEJM would be interested in retrospectives is another issue, but if they are, it should be easier to get into NEJM than Nature because Nature requires years of intense lab research in order to assemble a convincing manuscript.
Edit: Ignore the IFs... I was wrong 🙂
I've honestly been considering getting a subscription. Might make a good Christmas present.
Pfffftahahaha he doesnt have both. Good luck in the Carribean kiddo
C
cellsaver
I am a subscriber to NEJM and the "pieces" published in the past 12 -18 months have been decried by many physican subscribers in the public online comments section. NEJM has become a political activist journal with some of their pieces as far left and extreme as Washington Post and NY Times. Quite a few are authored by political "scientists" and not a few JDs. It is troubling.
I don't subscribe to Nature and have read articles that were redirects from PubMed via my university server access for free. Nature strikes me as more purist of a scientific realm than some or the hack pieces in NEJM of late
I don't subscribe to Nature and have read articles that were redirects from PubMed via my university server access for free. Nature strikes me as more purist of a scientific realm than some or the hack pieces in NEJM of late
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
:eyeroll:
:troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll:
Nature. I am biased though.
C
cellsaver
drama queen
They cater to a completely different reader populace. Nature and Science journals are written for basic scientists whereas NEJM is a clinical journal. Which one is "better" would depend on what your paper is about. If it's about a case study of some rare disease that doesn't delve into biochemical mechanisms, then NEJM is the better fit because their readers are who you are targeting. Target audience is quite important for publishing and often overlooked - if your paper doesn't get to the target audience, it's not going to get cited as much no matter what journal it's in.
That's true but there is a significant overlap between the two journals. For example, I'm working on a paper that is ~70% translation science (proteomics analysis, mRNA experession, etc.) and 30% biostatistics based on patient charts. This paper is definitely not anywhere near the tier of a nature or NEJM paper, but it could theoretically be a decent fit for either because it's focus is both translational and directly clinical.
Besides this question wasn't really about which journal is more important. I was just curious which would be more eye popping on physician's a CV.
I wouldn't know, I've never seen an article in Nature confirming this statistic.
I have not seen a Nature paper in my entire career that includes data based on patient charts. But I won't pretend I've read them all and it could be because the articles that catch my eye are usually chemistry/chemical biology.
