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

PLoS ONE uses a straightforward criterion: Is the research rigorous and novel? If yes, publish it. The journal doesn't require that your work be "significant" in a broad sense. 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 takes a middle ground. The work must be scientifically sound and novel, but editors also assess whether it holds interest beyond a narrow subspecialty. You don't need a breakthrough, but your paper should be relevant to a recognizable research community, not just a handful of specialists. Papers that are too narrow or too incremental face rejection at Scientific Reports, though with feedback.

In practice: a study of a rare disease biomarker in a small population might sail through PLoS ONE but face skepticism at Scientific Reports ("Limited broader applicability"). A new chemical compound with limited practical use might be accepted at PLoS ONE but rejected at Scientific Reports.

Both journals are truly multidisciplinary: biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, computer science, social sciences, and more. Neither restricts by field. The difference is in how "narrow" is too narrow. PLoS ONE happily publishes highly specialized work. Scientific Reports prefers work with at least moderate relevance across a research community.

If your paper is important to your specific niche but limited in broader appeal, PLoS ONE is the safer bet. Scientific Reports will consider it, but you're less certain of acceptance.

PLoS ONE: Approximately 25-30% acceptance rate across all submissions.

Scientific Reports: ~57% acceptance in Manusights' current internal estimate.

The rates are similar enough that both are reasonably selective. You're not assured publication at either journal, but both welcome a meaningful fraction of submissions. PLoS ONE's slightly lower rate reflects the journal's size and prestige growth over time; Scientific Reports' rate reflects a newer journal still growing its prestige footprint.

PLoS ONE: Typically 1-2 weeks for initial editorial check, then 4-10 weeks for peer review. Total: 2-3.5 months on average. Some papers move quickly; others face multiple rounds of revision.

Scientific Reports: 21 days median to first editorial decision.

The difference is modest. Both journals are reasonably quick compared to traditional subscription journals.

PLoS ONE: Full open-access. APC approximately $1,595 USD (may vary or be waived for researchers 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 £2,190 / $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 and novel? 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 screen more carefully. Some papers are desk-rejected if editors deem them too narrow or incremental. Others go to review. Reviewers answer similar questions to PLoS ONE, but the editorial bar is somewhat higher. You're less likely to get feedback if desk-rejected, but more likely to get published if sent to review.

Ask yourself: Is my paper specialized or broadly relevant?

• Narrow, specialized work (niche subfield, small population, limited application): PLoS ONE is the better fit. It's designed for this. You'll likely publish and reach 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; PLoS ONE is perhaps a touch more likely to accept.

• Work with strong interdisciplinary appeal: Scientific Reports edges ahead. The journal values broad relevance, and your paper fits that criterion.

• Incremental advance or methodological paper: PLoS ONE. Scientific Reports may reject as too narrow; PLoS ONE evaluates on rigor alone.

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 novelty, perceived importance, or whether the findings advance the field. 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 still desk-reject for methodological problems, incomplete data, and scope issues. Scientific Reports desk-rejects about 40% of submissions. PLOS ONE has tightened screening significantly, its acceptance rate dropped from 68% a decade ago to ~31% in 2024.

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 60 seconds and is free.

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

PLOS ONE: Expanding "All-In" unlimited publishing agreements with participating institutions (effective 2025-2026). If your university has a PLOS agreement, the $1,695 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 (3.9 vs 2.6) or the sticker-price difference ($2,850 vs $1,695).

Both journals are legitimate, peer-reviewed, open-access journals respected by the scientific community. Scientific Reports has a slight edge in impact factor and prestige due to Nature Portfolio affiliation. PLOS ONE is the larger, more established journal with a broader appetite for specialized work. 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.