Nature Communications vs Scientific Reports: Which Should You Submit To?

Nature Communications has an impact factor of 15.7 (2024 JCR), while Scientific Reports is 3.9 (2024 JCR). Nature Communications is 4.0 times higher. Nature Communications ranks 10th among multidisciplinary science journals globally; Scientific Reports ranks 25th. This represents a meaningful prestige gap. Nature Communications is a top-tier journal; Scientific Reports is a mid-tier open-access journal. Articles in Nature Communications receive significantly more citations on average.

For career impact: publishing in Nature Communications is prestigious and carries weight in grant proposals, promotions, and hiring. Publishing in Scientific Reports is respectable but less prestigious. The difference is notable, particularly at the early-career stage when individual publications matter more.

Nature Communications accepts high-quality research with significant findings and broad interest. The editorial bar is: "Does this represent important research that the broad scientific community will care about?" The journal looks for novelty, methodological rigor, and significance. Approximately 70-75% of submissions are rejected.

Scientific Reports has a broader acceptance mandate. The journal accepts solid, well-executed research that may be more specialized or narrower in scope. The editorial philosophy is more inclusive: "Is this scientifically sound research?" Scientific Reports explicitly accepts research that might be important within a specific subfield but lacks the broader significance required for Nature Communications. Approximately 50-55% of submissions are rejected.

In practice: a study that's technically solid and publishable but incremental in nature or highly specialized might be rejected by Nature Communications and accepted by Scientific Reports. A significant finding in a major area would likely succeed at Nature Communications and easily pass at Scientific Reports.

Both journals are multidisciplinary and accept research across all sciences: biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, engineering, geology, and more. The difference is not in scope but in the significance threshold. Nature Communications focuses on research with broad impact; Scientific Reports accepts work that may be important within a discipline without requiring broad, cross-disciplinary appeal.

Nature Communications: ~20% acceptance rate in current Manusights canonical data. Selective, but realistic for strong papers with clear significance.

Scientific Reports: ~57% acceptance in Manusights' current internal estimate. It is materially more inclusive than Nature Communications.

The acceptance rate gap is substantial. Your odds of publication are nearly twice as high at Scientific Reports. This is the most significant practical difference between the journals.

Nature Communications: ~9 days to first editorial decision on the current journal metrics page.

Scientific Reports: Desk decision within 1-2 weeks. Peer review typically 3-6 weeks. Total: 1.5-2 months on average. Scientific Reports is faster, with both desk and peer review completing more quickly.

If time-to-publication matters, Scientific Reports has a 2-4 week advantage over Nature Communications on average.

Nature Communications: No strict length limit. Articles typically range from 8-12 pages. Allows room for methodology and supplementary data.

Scientific Reports: No strict length limit. Articles typically range from 6-15 pages depending on content. Flexible format accommodates both brief studies and comprehensive investigations.

Both journals are accommodating on length. There's little practical difference in format constraints between them.

Nature Communications: Full open access. APC is approximately $7,000–7,500 (among the highest in the industry).

Scientific Reports: Full open access. APC is approximately $2,000–2,200 (significantly cheaper than Nature Communications).

This is an important consideration. Scientific Reports is substantially cheaper to publish in (roughly one-third the cost of Nature Communications). If cost is a factor, Scientific Reports is the more economical choice. Both are open access, so there's no advantage to one over the other in terms of reader access to your work.

Nature Communications editors are relatively selective. They send promising papers to peer review and maintain high standards. Reviewers are typically experts, and feedback tends to be rigorous and detailed.

Scientific Reports editors are more inclusive in sending papers to peer review. The journal has a larger team of editors and a broader acceptance mandate. Reviewers focus on soundness rather than significance. Feedback tends to be constructive but may be less demanding than at Nature Communications.

Significant research with broad appeal: Nature Communications is the right target. Your work should have impact across multiple research communities or represent an important advance in a major field. You have decent odds (25-30%) and higher prestige upon publication.

Solid research that's important within your field but narrow in scope: Scientific Reports is the better fit. Nature Communications may desk-reject this as insufficiently significant or broadly interesting. Scientific Reports will consider it seriously and has higher acceptance odds (45-50%).

Incremental advance or specialized study: Scientific Reports. Nature Communications judges work by broader significance standards that your paper may not meet. Scientific Reports welcomes work that advances understanding within a specialty.

Cost is a concern: Scientific Reports is significantly cheaper ($2,000–2,200 vs $7,000–7,500). If your grant or institution has limited open-access funds, Scientific Reports is more economical.

Seeking faster publication: Scientific Reports is 2-4 weeks faster on average. Both are reasonable timelines, but Scientific Reports edges out Nature Communications on speed.

First-author publication or early-career researcher: Scientific Reports provides slightly easier odds and lower cost, making it a good choice for building publication record.

A smart approach: If you believe your work is significant and broadly interesting, submit to Nature Communications first. The prestige is worth the effort. If Nature Communications rejects with feedback suggesting the work is solid but insufficiently significant, revise using that feedback and submit to Scientific Reports. Many papers succeed at Scientific Reports after Nature Communications rejection.

Alternatively, if you're uncertain about significance or cost is a factor, start at Scientific Reports. You'll get published faster, spend less, and still have a quality publication. You can always cite the Scientific Reports paper and pursue Nature Communications for your next work.

Both journals accept preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv, etc.). Publishing a preprint does not prevent journal submission. If you're uncertain which journal to choose, posting a preprint while deciding between Nature Communications and Scientific Reports is a smart strategy. It gets your work visible while peer review happens at your journal of choice.

Nature Communications and Scientific Reports are both Nature Portfolio journals offering open access, but they serve different research tiers. Nature Communications is high-impact and selective, accepting significant research with broad appeal. Scientific Reports is more inclusive, welcoming solid research that may be more specialized or narrower in scope. Both are legitimate, peer-reviewed venues. The prestige and impact factor gap is real, but Scientific Reports is not a "lesser" journal—it's a different tier serving different research. The choice depends on your paper's significance, your career stage, and your publication timeline and cost constraints.

Publishing in Nature Communications is prestigious and career-boosting. Publishing in Scientific Reports is respectable and faster with lower costs. Both support your research visibility and credibility.