IEEE Access vs Scientific Reports
IEEE Access and Scientific Reports are both broad open-access journals, but IEEE Access is technology-first while Scientific Reports is broader across science.
Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.
Journal fit
See whether this paper looks realistic for Scientific Reports.
Run the Free Readiness Scan with Scientific Reports as your target journal and see whether this paper looks like a realistic submission.
Scientific Reports at a glance
Key metrics to place the journal before deciding whether it fits your manuscript and career goals.
What makes this journal worth targeting
- IF 3.9 puts Scientific Reports in a visible tier — citations from papers here carry real weight.
- Scope specificity matters more than impact factor for most manuscript decisions.
- Acceptance rate of ~~57% means fit determines most outcomes.
When to look elsewhere
- When your paper sits at the edge of the journal's stated scope — borderline fit rarely improves after submission.
- If timeline matters: Scientific Reports takes ~21 day. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
- If OA is required: gold OA costs £2,190 / $2,850 / €2,490. Check institutional agreements before submitting.
IEEE Access vs Scientific Reports at a glance
Use the table to see where the journals diverge before you read the longer comparison. The right choice usually comes down to scope, editorial filter, and the kind of paper you actually have.
Question | IEEE Access | Scientific Reports |
|---|---|---|
Best fit | IEEE Access is a fully open access, multidisciplinary journal published by IEEE covering. | Scientific Reports is one of the world's largest multidisciplinary journals by article. |
Editors prioritize | Technical soundness and methodological correctness | Technical soundness over novelty |
Typical article types | Research Article, Survey Article | Article, Review Article |
Closest alternatives | IEEE Transactions (field-specific, higher bar), IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society | PLOS ONE, Nature Communications |
Quick answer: Choose IEEE Access when the manuscript is primarily engineering, computing, electronics, networks, signal processing, AI, systems, or applied technology inside IEEE's fields of interest. Choose Scientific Reports when the manuscript is broader natural science, medicine, psychology, engineering, or interdisciplinary research that needs a wide scientific audience rather than an IEEE-first audience.
If you want a fast journal-fit read before submission, start with the AI manuscript review. For nearby decisions, read PLOS ONE vs Scientific Reports and PNAS vs Scientific Reports.
Method note: this page uses IEEE Access author and reviewer materials, Scientific Reports aims and open-access information, Springer Nature APC guidance, and Manusights journal-fit review patterns reviewed in April 2026. This is the canonical comparison page; do not also build scientific-reports-vs-ieee-access.How IEEE Access And Scientific Reports Compare
Question | IEEE Access | Scientific Reports |
|---|---|---|
Core editorial question | Is this a technically sound contribution inside IEEE fields of interest? | Is this valid research of interest across the journal's broad scientific scope? |
Strongest paper | Applied technology, engineering, computing, systems, signal, AI, networks | Broad natural science, medicine, psychology, engineering, interdisciplinary science |
Review posture | Binary accept/reject process with constructive feedback | Broad open-access review through Nature Portfolio workflow |
Speed signal | Publicly emphasizes 4 to 6 weeks submission to publication | Timing varies by field, editor, reviewer availability, and production |
Common fit mistake | Paper is science-adjacent but not an IEEE-field contribution | Paper is really an engineering audience paper |
Better first page | Technical contribution and application path | Scientific question and evidence package |
Both journals are broad. Broad does not mean interchangeable.
Which Should You Submit To?
Submit to IEEE Access if the paper's natural reader is an engineer, computer scientist, signal-processing researcher, electrical engineer, robotics researcher, or applied AI systems reader.
Submit to Scientific Reports if the paper's natural reader is a broader scientist and the journal fit depends on methodologically sound science rather than IEEE-field identity.
This boundary prevents cannibalization with existing PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports, and IEEE Access journal pages. This page owns the direct choice between IEEE-field open access and broad Nature Portfolio open access.
Choose IEEE Access If / Choose Scientific Reports If
Choose IEEE Access if your manuscript's value is a technical contribution: method, architecture, device, algorithm, system, engineering design, benchmark, application, or reproducible technology result.
Choose Scientific Reports if your manuscript's value is a broad scientific result where engineering or computation may be part of the method, but not the entire audience.
Manuscript pattern | Better first target |
|---|---|
Wireless, networks, circuits, sensors, systems, signal processing | IEEE Access |
Biological, medical, environmental, or psychology study with technical analysis | Scientific Reports |
Applied AI model for engineering workflow | IEEE Access |
Interdisciplinary natural-science paper with broad methods | Scientific Reports |
Hardware, robotics, computing, device, or electrical engineering | IEEE Access |
Broad dataset, observation, or experimental science paper | Scientific Reports |
If both journals seem plausible, ask which reviewer pool would understand the contribution without translation.
Journal fit
Ready to find out which journal fits? Run the scan for Scientific Reports first.
Run the scan with Scientific Reports as the target. Get a fit signal that makes the comparison concrete.
What IEEE Access Wants
IEEE Access describes itself as a multidisciplinary, online-only, gold open-access journal covering IEEE fields of interest. Its public pages emphasize rapid peer review, a 4 to 6 week submission-to-publication pathway, and a binary decision process.
IEEE Access also publishes reviewer criteria around contribution to the body of knowledge, technical soundness, clear presentation, references, and scope. That means the paper needs to look technically complete. A paper can be applied and practical, but it still has to show a contribution beyond implementation.
IEEE Access is usually stronger when:
- the paper is clearly inside IEEE fields
- the technical contribution is easy to name
- methods and experiments are reproducible
- the application path matters
- the author wants open access with a technology audience
What Scientific Reports Wants
Scientific Reports is a broad open-access journal from Nature Portfolio. Its aims cover original research across natural sciences, psychology, medicine, and engineering.
Scientific Reports is often the cleaner fit when:
- the work is broader than an IEEE-field contribution
- the audience spans multiple scientific areas
- the paper is technically valid but not necessarily a specialized engineering article
- the result belongs with a broad scientific readership
- the manuscript is not built around an IEEE-style contribution statement
Scientific Reports does not become better just because the paper is interdisciplinary. The first page still has to make the scientific question and evidence readable.
In Our Pre-Submission Review Work
In our pre-submission review work, IEEE Access vs Scientific Reports decisions usually fail for three reasons.
IEEE-field ambiguity: the manuscript uses engineering methods, but the contribution is actually biomedical, environmental, or behavioral science. IEEE Access may see the paper as outside its strongest audience.
Scientific Reports over-breadth: the authors choose Scientific Reports because it is broad, but the paper's real value is a technical system contribution better assessed by IEEE reviewers.
Speed-first targeting: authors choose IEEE Access because it publicly emphasizes speed, even though the paper is not written for an IEEE audience.
Prestige anxiety: authors choose Scientific Reports because it is Nature Portfolio, but the paper would get a more technically sympathetic read in IEEE Access.
What To Fix Before Submission
For IEEE Access, make the technical contribution visible in the title, abstract, first figure, and experiment design. The paper should not read like a general scientific case study with a technical tool attached.
For Scientific Reports, make the scientific question and evidence package visible early. If engineering is the method, explain the scientific result, not only the technical build.
For both, avoid scope-by-logo thinking. A broad journal still has a reader.
Tie-Breaker Cases Editors Notice
Some manuscripts can plausibly point in either direction. The tie-breaker is not which journal sounds broader. It is which reviewer can evaluate the work without mentally rewriting the paper.
Choose IEEE Access when the manuscript's central proof is a system, device, algorithm, network, control method, signal-processing workflow, or engineering evaluation. In that case, the abstract should lead with the technical problem, the design choice, the benchmark, and the measurable result. If the paper only mentions the application area and delays the engineering contribution until the methods, it will feel under-positioned.
Choose Scientific Reports when the technical work is mainly a way to answer a scientific question. In that case, the first page should lead with the phenomenon, sample, experiment, measurement, or scientific inference. If the abstract reads like a product specification, Scientific Reports reviewers may struggle to see the scientific contribution.
For authors who are still unsure, we recommend a one-page target-journal test: rewrite the title, abstract opening, and first figure caption for each journal. The better target is usually the version that becomes more specific, not the version that becomes more generic.
Submit If / Think Twice If
Submit to IEEE Access if:
- the paper sits naturally inside IEEE fields of interest
- the technical contribution is explicit
- methods, experiments, code, data, or benchmarks are reviewable
- the audience is engineering or applied technology
Submit to Scientific Reports if:
- the work is broad scientific research
- the evidence matters outside an IEEE-specific community
- engineering or computation supports the science rather than owning it
- the paper needs a general scientific readership
Think twice for both if:
- the target is chosen mainly for speed
- the first page cannot name the reader
- the paper is a specialty result that belongs in a field journal
Bottom Line
IEEE Access is usually the better fit for technology-first work inside IEEE fields. Scientific Reports is usually the better fit for broad scientific research that needs a general open-access science audience.
Use the AI manuscript review if you need a fast read on which journal your first page actually supports.
- https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/about/
- https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/authors/
- https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines/
- https://www.nature.com/srep/about/aims
- https://www.nature.com/srep/open-access-funding
Frequently asked questions
Submit to IEEE Access when the manuscript is clearly inside IEEE fields of interest, especially engineering, computing, electronics, AI, networks, systems, signal processing, or applied technology. Submit to Scientific Reports when the manuscript is broader natural science, medicine, psychology, engineering, or interdisciplinary research that is not primarily an IEEE-field paper.
IEEE Access publicly emphasizes an expedited review and publication process of about 4 to 6 weeks. Scientific Reports timing varies by manuscript, editor, reviewers, and post-acceptance steps.
Not necessarily. If the paper is mainly engineering or applied technology, IEEE Access is often the cleaner audience. Scientific Reports is better when the work needs a broader scientific readership.
The two pages would answer the same comparison query. Manusights uses one canonical comparison page to avoid cannibalization.
Final step
See whether this paper fits Scientific Reports.
Run the Free Readiness Scan with Scientific Reports as your target journal and get a manuscript-specific fit signal before you commit.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
Supporting reads
Conversion step
See whether this paper fits Scientific Reports.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.