Communications Biology vs Scientific Reports: Which Fits Your Paper?

Short answer

Communications Biology (IF 5.2) reviews for biological significance and technical quality. Scientific Reports (IF 3.9) reviews for soundness only. If your biology paper has genuine significance, try Communications Biology first. If it's technically sound but incremental, Scientific Reports is the more realistic target.

Best for

• Biologists choosing between these two Nature Portfolio open-access journals
• Authors whose papers are above the Scientific Reports bar but below Nature Communications
• Researchers deciding whether to submit to the more selective option first

Not best for

• Non-biology manuscripts (Communications Biology is biology-only)
• Assuming IF alone determines which journal is "better" for your specific paper
• Papers that clearly belong at a higher-tier journal like Nature Communications

The Editorial Philosophy Split

Both journals are part of the Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature), but they operate under fundamentally different editorial models.

Communications Biology launched in 2018 as a selective primary research journal for biology. Editors evaluate whether the findings represent a meaningful advance in biological understanding. Reviewers assess both technical quality and significance. Papers that are technically correct but don't offer new biological insight get rejected.

Scientific Reports launched in 2011 as a mega-journal modeled after PLOS ONE. Editors and reviewers evaluate scientific soundness only. If the methodology is appropriate, the statistics are correct, and the conclusions follow from the data, the paper can be accepted regardless of whether the finding is novel or significant.

This is the single most important difference. A technically sound paper with modest biological novelty will be rejected at Communications Biology and accepted at Scientific Reports. Understanding which editorial model fits your paper saves months.

The Numbers Side by Side

When to Target Communications Biology

Communications Biology works for papers that sit in a specific middle zone: too specialized or incremental for Nature Communications (IF 15.7), but with genuine biological significance beyond what a soundness-only journal requires.

Typical Communications Biology papers include:

• Well-executed studies with clear mechanistic insight in a specific biological system
• Papers that advance understanding of a biological process, even if the advance is field-specific rather than broadly impactful
• Studies combining multiple approaches (genomics, imaging, functional assays) to address a focused biological question

If you can articulate in one sentence why your finding matters for biology beyond confirming what people already suspected, Communications Biology is likely the right level.

When to Target Scientific Reports

Scientific Reports works for papers where the primary value is the data, not the interpretation. This includes:

• Replication studies and negative results
• Methods validation papers
• Descriptive studies with solid data but limited mechanistic novelty
• Work that fills a gap in the literature without redefining a field

There's no shame in this. The scientific literature needs rigorous descriptive and replication work. Scientific Reports provides a PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed venue for exactly that purpose.

The Cascade Strategy

If you're unsure which journal fits, submit to Communications Biology first. If they decline, you haven't lost much time (desk rejections come in 1-2 weeks), and you can submit to Scientific Reports with a clearer understanding of where your paper's significance sits.

The reverse is harder to justify. Going from Scientific Reports acceptance to withdrawing and submitting to Communications Biology wastes time and looks odd. Start with the more selective option when you're genuinely uncertain.

For papers that might be above Communications Biology's level, consider Nature Communications (IF 15.7). For a detailed look at Scientific Reports, see Is Scientific Reports a good journal?. For broader comparison options, see Scientific Reports vs PLOS ONE and how to choose a journal.

Sources

• Clarivate JCR 2024: Communications Biology IF 5.2, Scientific Reports IF 3.9
• Springer Nature journal pages for both journals, accessed March 2026
• Nature Portfolio editorial policies on review criteria