Is Scientific Reports a Good Journal in 2026? An Honest Assessment

Decision cue: If you need a yes/no submission call today, compare your draft with 3 recent accepted papers from this journal and only submit when scope, methods depth, and claim strength line up.

Related: How to choose a journal • How to avoid desk rejection • Pre-submission checklist

Is Scientific Reports a good journal? The direct answer: it's real, indexed, and peer-reviewed. But "good" depends entirely on what you need from a journal, and for a lot of researchers in competitive fields, Scientific Reports isn't the right venue.

Here's a complete breakdown.

What Scientific Reports actually is

Scientific Reports launched in 2011 as Nature Publishing Group's answer to PLOS ONE. Both journals use the same editorial philosophy: publish any technically sound study, regardless of whether the finding is novel or impactful. Reviewers don't ask "is this interesting?" They ask "is this methodology correct and are the conclusions supported by the data?"

Wait, that last sentence had an em dash. Let me be precise: reviewers assess whether the methodology is correct and whether the conclusions follow from the data. Novelty is not a criterion.

That model has advantages. It reduces publication bias. Negative results and replication studies get published. Methods papers have a home.

The trade-off: almost anything technically correct gets in. That accounts for the 57% acceptance rate.

The numbers that matter

Impact factor: 3.9 (2024 JCR). Down from 4.5 in 2020. The decline has been steady and shows no sign of reversing, partly because the journal keeps expanding volume and partly because authors who could publish there are increasingly choosing eLife, PLOS Biology, or other open-access venues with better reputations.

Acceptance rate: ~57%. For comparison, Nature Communications accepts ~20%, PLOS ONE ~40%, eLife (after peer review) around 60% but with a harder review process. The 57% acceptance rate at Scientific Reports is the single biggest signal about selectivity.

APC: $2,490 for open-access publication. That is not cheap. PLOS ONE charges $1,895. For the same price tier, you get less prestige at Scientific Reports.

Time to first decision: Typically 4-6 weeks. Desk rejections can come in 1-2 weeks. Accepted papers with revisions average 60-90 days total.

Publisher: Springer Nature. Indexed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. This matters because the paper counts for databases, grant reports, and h-index tracking.

Is Scientific Reports predatory?

No. And the question comes up constantly because researchers conflate "low prestige" with "predatory." They are different things.

Predatory journals fake peer review. They accept papers immediately for a fee, often without any editorial process at all. Scientific Reports has real peer review. Editors will desk-reject papers outside scope or with obvious methodological problems. Reviewers do read submissions. Revisions get requested. The process is genuine.

What Scientific Reports doesn't do is filter for novelty or impact. That's a deliberate editorial choice, not a fraud.

How it looks on your CV

This is where it gets complicated, and depends heavily on your field and career stage.

In many applied science fields, including materials science, environmental science, agricultural research, and engineering, a paper in Scientific Reports is unremarkable. Plenty of solid work sits there, nobody raises an eyebrow, and it counts toward productivity metrics.

In high-competition biomedical fields, including oncology, immunology, and neuroscience, a Scientific Reports paper from a postdoc or junior faculty will raise questions. Hiring committees and grant reviewers who see a publication record heavy with Scientific Reports papers may wonder why the researcher isn't placing work in more selective journals.

The practical version: if you're a PhD student who needs a first-author paper to graduate, Scientific Reports is a reasonable option. If you're a postdoc building a record for a faculty job in a competitive subfield, it probably shouldn't be your primary target.

The citation realities

Scientific Reports publishes a very high volume of papers. Over 25,000 articles per year as of recent counts. At that scale, individual papers tend to get fewer citations than papers in more selective journals, not because the work is bad, but because the signal-to-noise ratio for readers is lower.

If citation accumulation matters for your situation, the journal's volume works against you compared to a journal like Cell Reports (IF 6.9) or even PLOS Biology (IF 6.9), both of which publish less and curate more carefully.

Who actually publishes there

Looking at the actual paper mix: a lot of clinical epidemiology, large cohort studies, applied technology papers, and work from institutions in countries where top-tier publication is genuinely harder to access. The journal has provided a real venue for science that might not otherwise get published.

It also gets heavy use as a landing spot. Authors who submitted to Nature Communications, got rejected, and sent the paper to Scientific Reports rather than starting the submission process elsewhere. That pattern is common enough that editors at higher-tier journals know about it.

The comparison everyone makes

Scientific Reports vs. PLOS ONE: PLOS ONE's IF is 2.6, which is lower than Scientific Reports (3.9), but PLOS ONE has a stronger reputation partly because it was first and partly because the PLOS brand carries weight in open science circles. Acceptance rates are comparable. APC is lower at PLOS ONE ($1,895 vs. $2,490).

Scientific Reports vs. Nature Communications: Not really comparable. Nature Communications has IF 15.7 and roughly 20% acceptance. Different tier entirely.

Scientific Reports vs. eLife: eLife is moving away from accept/reject decisions; their review process is rigorous even if publication decisions have changed. IF 6.4. More competitive, better reputation.

Scientific Reports vs. BMC journals: Similar tier. BMC Medicine and BMC Biology have comparable IF ranges and similar broad-scope mandates, though with different field emphases.

Should you submit there?

Submit to Scientific Reports if:

• Your work is technically solid but probably won't pass novelty filters at higher-tier journals
• You need a fast turnaround on an indexed publication
• You're in a field where the journal has an established track record
• You've already been rejected from your target journals and need to publish the work

Think twice if:

• You're a postdoc in a competitive field building toward a faculty application
• The study is strong enough to compete at PLOS ONE, eLife, or Cell Reports
• Your PI or collaborators have opinions about where the lab publishes
• You're paying $2,000 APC and could get comparable indexing for less elsewhere

What reviewers at Scientific Reports actually check

Reviewers don't ask whether your finding is novel. They ask:

• Is the experimental design appropriate for the question being asked?
• Are the statistical analyses correct and clearly reported?
• Do the conclusions follow from the data, without overreach?
• Are the methods described in enough detail to reproduce the work?

A well-executed study with a narrow or incremental finding can get accepted. A sloppy study with an exciting result will get rejected. That's a reasonable filter, just a different one than what selective journals use.

Common rejection reasons at Scientific Reports: underpowered studies, insufficient statistical reporting, figures that don't clearly support the claimed conclusions, and missing controls.

The desk rejection question

Scientific Reports does desk reject. Roughly 20-30% of submissions get rejected before external peer review, usually for scope issues or clear methodological problems visible from the abstract alone. That's lower than Nature Communications (50-60%) or Cell (70%+), but it still happens. Don't assume submission equals peer review.

Bottom line

Scientific Reports is legitimate. Indexed, real peer review, real publisher. Not predatory.

It's not selective. IF 3.9 and falling, 57% acceptance, $2,000 APC. The trade-off is clear: fast indexed publication in exchange for lower prestige and lower citation density compared to more selective journals. If you know that going in, it can be the right call. If you expected it to carry the weight of a more selective journal, it won't.

If you're deciding between journals and want to know whether your manuscript is strong enough for a more selective venue, a pre-submission review can flag exactly what would need to change to compete at PLOS ONE, eLife, or Cell Reports.

What happens if your paper gets rejected

If Scientific Reports rejects your submission, the most common reasons are scope mismatch, methodological concerns flagged at desk review, or statistical issues from peer reviewers.

Unlike high-impact journals, rejection from Scientific Reports is relatively uncommon if your paper is technically sound and within scope. If you do get rejected, the decision letter usually explains why clearly enough to act on.

Papers rejected from Scientific Reports often land at BMC journals, PeerJ, or other broad open-access venues. Some authors use the peer review feedback to improve the paper before submitting to a more selective journal, since Scientific Reports reviewers tend to focus on methodology rather than novelty.

The volume problem

Scientific Reports publishes over 25,000 articles per year. At that scale, even strong papers can get lost. Citation accumulation is lower than in more curated journals, not because the work is bad, but because readers face more noise when browsing the journal. This is not a reason to avoid it if it's the right fit, but it's worth knowing before you pay $2,490 and assume the paper will reach its audience.

Related reading

• Scientific Reports impact factor 2026
• PLOS ONE vs Scientific Reports: which is better for your paper?
• Cell Reports impact factor and acceptance rate

The Bottom Line

Scientific Reports is a good journal for the right paper: methodologically sound, reproducible, and not chasing a high-IF target. If your work fits that description, it belongs there. If you're aiming higher because the work supports it, our diagnostic can help you assess whether the step up is realistic.

Sources

• Published editorial guidelines from high-impact journals
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) reporting standards
• CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, and ARRIVE reporting guidelines
• Pre-Submission Checklist , 25-point audit before you submit

See also

• Scientific Reports Impact Factor 2026
• Scientific Reports vs PLOS ONE
• Scientific Reports Submission Guide