Nature vs Scientific Reports: Which Should You Submit To?

Nature's JIF is 56.1; Scientific Reports is 4.9 in current 2025 JIF context. This is not a minor difference; it reflects the journals' distinct missions. Nature sits in the very top tier of all journals across all disciplines. Scientific Reports, while respectable and open-access, ranks well below that.

For career purposes: Nature is a career-defining publication. Scientific Reports is a solid addition to your CV that shows peer-reviewed, published work. The prestige gap matters in competitive hiring and grant contexts, but a Scientific Reports publication is valuable and legitimate.

Nature explicitly accepts only papers that represent major advances in science. The work must be novel at a conceptual level - not just methodologically novel or incremental. Editors ask: "Will this reshape how the field thinks about this topic?" If the answer isn't clearly yes, the paper faces desk rejection before peer review.

Scientific Reports takes a broader view. The acceptance criteria are: scientific rigor, novelty, and significance within the research community. You don't need a breakthrough. A new method, a solid mechanistic study, an incremental advance in an important area - these all qualify if they're well-executed and peer-reviewed favorably.

In practice: a new measurement technique in your subfield might be too incremental for Nature (desk rejection in 1-2 weeks) but publishable in Scientific Reports (after standard peer review). A study of a single protein mechanism might get rejected at Nature for "limited broader significance" but land in Scientific Reports.

Both journals accept research across all scientific disciplines: biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, geology, engineering, and beyond. Neither restricts by field. The difference is impact threshold, not scope. A paper either meets each journal's bar for significance or it doesn't.

Scientific Reports is slightly more welcoming to narrow, specialized studies. If your work is important to your specific subfield but doesn't appeal across disciplines, Nature will desk-reject it; Scientific Reports will consider it seriously.

Nature: Officially about 8% of submitted manuscripts are accepted, and most are declined without peer review.

Scientific Reports: much more inclusive than Nature, with commonly used planning figures around 50% overall or 57% post-screening. Treat those as planning context, not a Nature-style official top-line rate unless you have a current publisher source.

The higher Scientific Reports rate reflects lower barriers to entry. It's still selective (most submissions don't get published), but you have far better odds than Nature. If your paper is solid and novel, Scientific Reports is more likely to publish it.

Nature: 8 days median to first editorial decision in current Nature metric context.

Scientific Reports: 21 days median to first editorial decision.

Nature: hybrid journal. The subscription route has no author APC, while current gold open access is $12,850.

Scientific Reports: full open access. The current listed APC is £2,190 / $2,850 / €2,490. If accepted, your article is free to read worldwide.

If your institution covers open-access fees, or you have grant funding for APCs, Scientific Reports is very attractive. If APC is a barrier, Nature's no-cost model is appealing - though acceptance is harder.

Nature editors make tough calls at the desk stage. They're looking for papers that feel like obvious breakthroughs once published. If they're unsure, they lean toward rejection to protect the journal's selectivity. Most desk rejections at Nature happen within 2 weeks.

Scientific Reports editors use peer review more liberally. Even papers that seem marginal or narrow get sent to review if the science is sound. You're more likely to get reviewer feedback - which, while potentially critical, gives you a chance to improve or revise.

Ask yourself: Is my paper a breakthrough, or a solid contribution?

• Major breakthrough: Try Nature. Go for the top. If rejected, Scientific Reports is a fallback - but your work deserves the effort at Nature first.

• Novel advance with broad implications: Could go either way. If you're confident in broad significance, try Nature first. Otherwise, Scientific Reports is the safer, smarter target.

• Solid, novel work within a subfield: Scientific Reports is your journal. It's designed for this. You'll publish faster and likely with fewer revisions than chasing Nature.

• Methods paper, incremental advance, or narrow finding: Scientific Reports is the right target. Nature will almost certainly desk-reject. Scientific Reports will evaluate it fairly.

If the "breakthrough vs. solid contribution" call is not obvious from inside your own paper (it rarely is), a Nature vs Scientific Reports fit check evaluates your manuscript against the editorial bars of each and tells you which target has a realistic path.

Some researchers submit to Nature and simultaneously prepare for Scientific Reports as a backup. This isn't forbidden (as long as you're not submitting to both simultaneously - that violates policies). Get a Nature decision first, then if rejected, reformat minimally and send to Scientific Reports. The feedback from Nature reviewers (if you got to that stage) can even help you strengthen your Scientific Reports submission.

In our review work comparing Nature and Scientific Reports journal-fit decisions, the most common error is not failing to understand prestige. Authors understand prestige. The error is using prestige to answer a methodological-fit question. We reviewed this page to help authors decide before submitting, while the title, abstract, first figure, cover letter, methods detail, and data-availability statement can still be aligned with the target journal.

Nature-shaped manuscripts make one cross-field claim quickly. The title, summary paragraph, first figure, and cover letter all point to the same broad consequence. If the editor can explain why scientists outside the home field should care after one read, Nature can be a rational first target. The methods still need to be airtight, but the first screen is usually significance and breadth.

Scientific Reports-shaped manuscripts make a soundness case. They can be useful, reproducible, and worth publishing without changing a field's conceptual direction. The right question is whether the methods, statistics, sample size, data availability, and conclusions are tight enough for soundness review, not whether the result has Nature-level drama. A Scientific Reports cover letter should not pretend the paper is a flagship breakthrough if the abstract is really a rigor-and-reproducibility story.

The danger zone is the good specialist paper. Strong specialist work often wastes time at Nature because the broader consequence is argued rather than demonstrated. It may also undersell itself at Scientific Reports if the authors write a Nature-style novelty cover letter instead of explaining rigor and reproducibility. We see this most often when the first figure is technically impressive but does not carry a clear claim for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Use this section as a routing test. Choose Nature only when the manuscript's claim, evidence, and first visual summary already travel beyond the home field. Choose Scientific Reports when the study is solid, transparent, and useful, but the real selling point is methodological reliability rather than a field-resetting result.

Nature is exclusive by design. It publishes a small number of original research papers from many thousands of annual submissions. Scientific Reports publishes thousands of papers per year because it uses a broader acceptance threshold. Both are peer-reviewed, rigorous, and legitimate. The choice reflects how your paper stacks up against each journal's specific mission.

Publishing in Scientific Reports is a real achievement. Many excellent researchers publish regularly there. It's a strong, accessible outlet for solid science that doesn't quite reach the "paradigm-shifting" threshold.

Nature and Scientific Reports are both Springer Nature journals, but they're separated by several tiers. The typical cascade path from Nature:

A Nature desk rejection does not automatically transfer to Scientific Reports. The editor may suggest a Nature-branded specialty journal or Nature Communications as intermediate options. If the paper isn't suitable for any of those, Scientific Reports is the broadest landing spot within the portfolio.

Cost comparison across the cascade:

• Nature subscription: $0

• Nature gold OA: $12,850

• Nature Communications: $7,350 (mandatory OA)

• Scientific Reports: $2,850 (mandatory OA)

For labs without OA mandates, Nature at $0 (subscription) is the cheapest option in the entire portfolio if the paper can clear the bar. For labs with OA mandates, the cost escalates significantly at each tier.

• Your work is genuinely paradigm-shifting and broadly significant

• You can articulate why readers outside your subfield should care

• The evidence is overwhelming and the conclusions are definitive

• You're prepared for roughly 92% rejection odds and a fast desk decision

• The work is technically rigorous and the conclusions are sound

• The novelty argument doesn't stretch to "paradigm-shifting"

• You value OA publication and can cover the $2,850 APC

• You want a straightforward path to a legitimate, indexed publication

• The paper is interdisciplinary or narrow in scope

Unsure whether your paper belongs at Nature or Scientific Reports? A Nature vs. Scientific Reports scope check gives you a realistic assessment of your manuscript's significance level and journal fit.