PLoS ONE vs Scientific Reports: Which Should You Submit To?

PLoS ONE uses a straightforward criterion: Is the research scientifically rigorous? PLOS ONE says its editors decide on scientific rigor, regardless of novelty, and that its editorial decisions do not rely on perceived significance or impact. If yes, publish it. A detailed study of a single species, a niche methodological advance, a narrow application in a specialized field - if it's peer-reviewed favorably, PLoS ONE accepts it. This openness is intentional. PLoS ONE's founding mission was to remove prestige-based gating from science.

Scientific Reports also judges soundness rather than importance. The work must be scientifically valid, technically sound and an original contribution, and the journal says manuscripts are not assessed on perceived importance, significance or impact. You don't need a breakthrough.

In practice: a study of a rare disease biomarker in a small population, or a new chemical compound with limited practical use, is judged on soundness at both journals, so the decision turns on methods, data and reporting rather than on how broad the audience is.

Both journals are truly multidisciplinary: biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, computer science, and more. PLOS ONE also covers the related social sciences and humanities, while Scientific Reports covers the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. Both publish highly specialized work, because neither assesses perceived significance.

If your paper is important to a specific niche, compare the current scopes and reporting requirements directly. Do not turn that comparison into an acceptance forecast.

The official pages publish journal-wide acceptance figures (PLOS reports an acceptance rate of 26% for PLOS ONE in 2025 on its metrics page, and its journal information page lists 30.74% for January to June 2023, calculated from submission cohorts; the Scientific Reports editorial board FAQ, updated July 2022, gives approximately 50% overall), but none of them gives manuscript-level odds. Third-party rates and internal guesses should not become personal odds either. Compare the documented scope, reporting requirements, access route, and audience instead.

Timing varies by manuscript, editorial routing, reviewer availability, and revision history. PLOS lists a 2025 median of 32 days to first decision and 209 days to publication for PLOS ONE. Scientific Reports lists a 2025 median of 12 days to first editorial decision and 138 days to acceptance, and says it aims to give a first decision within 45 days. The measures differ, so do not choose a journal on a copied average.

PLoS ONE: Full open-access. APC $2,477 USD (fees are subject to change and may be waived or reduced for authors in lower-income countries). Once published, your article is free to read and reuse worldwide.

Scientific Reports: Full open-access. The current listed APC is £2,290 / $2,850 / €2,490. Also fully free to read once published.

Both journals have programs to waive or reduce APCs for authors with financial hardship. If your institution or grant covers open-access fees, both are equally accessible. If cost is a barrier, both are worth checking for fee waiver eligibility.

PLoS ONE sends most papers to peer review unless they're clearly out of scope or scientifically unsound. Reviewers are asked: Is the work technically sound? If yes, the paper is accepted even if impact is limited. This approach means more papers reach peer review and more authors get detailed feedback.

Scientific Reports editors also apply a soundness bar: its editorial board FAQ (updated July 2022) says an Editorial Board Member typically sends over 90% of the submissions they handle to external review. Reviewers assess technical soundness and scientific validity, so they answer questions similar to those at PLoS ONE.

Ask yourself: Is my paper specialized or broadly relevant?

• Narrow, specialized work (niche subfield, small population, limited application): Either journal can fit, since neither assesses perceived significance. PLoS ONE decides on scientific rigor regardless of novelty, which makes it a natural home for this kind of work and for reaching the researchers who care about your specific focus.

• Solid, novel work with moderate broad interest: Either journal works. Scientific Reports gives you slightly more prestige.

• Work with strong interdisciplinary appeal: Either journal works. Neither assesses perceived significance, so the choice turns on scope, cost and audience.

• Incremental advance or methodological paper: Either journal can fit. Both evaluate soundness rather than perceived significance, and PLoS ONE decides on rigor regardless of novelty.

You can submit to one, get rejected, and then submit to the other - they don't have exclusive agreements. If rejected at Scientific Reports, PLoS ONE is a logical next step (and vice versa, though less common since Scientific Reports is higher in the hierarchy). Simultaneous submission is not permitted.

Both PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports operate in the "technically sound" layer. They evaluate methodology, data quality, and reproducibility. Neither journal evaluates perceived importance or whether the findings advance the field; PLOS ONE decides regardless of novelty, while Scientific Reports asks for an original contribution. This is a feature, not a bug, it's what makes mega-journals useful for work that doesn't fit novelty-gated venues.

But "technically sound" does not mean "ready to submit." Both journals can decline manuscripts for methodological problems, incomplete data, ethics or reporting gaps, and scope mismatch. Those page-level defects are more actionable than an unofficial historical acceptance series.

Common desk rejection reasons at both journals:

• Methodology flaws visible to the editor (inadequate sample size, missing controls, inappropriate statistics)

• Scope mismatch (humanities at Scientific Reports, non-empirical work at PLOS ONE)

• Incomplete data (missing characterization, unreported variables, figures that don't match text)

• Ethical concerns (missing IRB approval, questionable consent procedures)

A PLOS ONE vs. Scientific Reports scope check can catch these issues before you submit. The scan takes about two to three minutes and is free.

Both journals have institutional agreements that can eliminate or reduce the APC:

PLOS ONE: Flat Fee agreements, under which institutions pay an annual flat fee and their authors can publish in PLOS ONE at no cost to the authors. If your university has a PLOS agreement, the $2,477 APC may be fully covered.

Scientific Reports: Springer Nature transformative agreements cover OA APCs at many institutions. Check your library's Springer Nature agreement status.

If your institution covers one journal's APC but not the other, that should drive your decision more than the IF difference or the sticker-price difference ($2,850 vs $2,477).

Both journals are legitimate, peer-reviewed, open-access journals respected by the scientific community. Scientific Reports has a slight edge in JIF and prestige due to Nature Portfolio affiliation. PLOS ONE is the larger, more established journal. Your choice should reflect whether your paper's significance is broad or narrow, and whether cost or branding matters more.

Publishing in either journal is a real achievement. Both are excellent outlets for solid peer-reviewed science.

Before submitting to PLOS ONE or Scientific Reports, a PLOS ONE vs. Scientific Reports scope check can check whether your manuscript has untapped potential for a higher-tier journal or is well-matched to these venues.