PLOS ONE vs Scientific Reports: Honest Comparison for 2026

PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports are often treated as interchangeable landing zones. They're not identical. The differences are subtle but consequential for your publication strategy.

Head-to-Head Metrics

Both journals use the same editorial philosophy: publish any methodologically sound study regardless of novelty or perceived impact. That makes them structurally similar and functionally different in the details.

Why the Different Acceptance Rates?

This is the first real divergence. PLOS ONE accepts roughly 31% of submissions. Scientific Reports accepts roughly 57%. Both percentages are inflated compared to selective journals, but the 26-point gap is substantial.

The difference is partially editorial. PLOS ONE's Academic Editor model is more heterogeneous. With 6,000+ Academic Editors (working scientists, not staff), some are strict about methodology while others are permissive. Scientific Reports has more standardized editorial screening by in-house staff and a single editorial team. This creates more consistency.

The practical result: your methodologically flawed paper has a better chance at Scientific Reports than at PLOS ONE. That's not necessarily good news. A faster path to acceptance of a flawed paper is still a flawed paper.

The Cost Difference

PLOS ONE: $1,931

Scientific Reports: $2,490

That's $559 more for Scientific Reports. For individual authors, it's noticeable. For labs with full OA agreements, it doesn't matter.

Many universities in the US and Europe have Springer Nature read-and-publish agreements that cover the Scientific Reports APC entirely. If your institution is on that list, Scientific Reports costs nothing. If not, you're paying the full $2,490.

PLOS ONE has a broader fee-waiver program. The Research4Life arrangement covers authors in many low- and middle-income countries entirely free. The Publication Fee Assistance program (application at submission time) handles cases of genuine financial hardship.

Cost matters if your grant doesn't include publications budget or if you're paying out of pocket. Otherwise, it's secondary to fit.

Impact Factor: What It Actually Means

Scientific Reports' 3.9 looks substantially higher than PLOS ONE's 2.6. It's real, but interpret it carefully.

Scientific Reports publishes ~20,000 articles per year. PLOS ONE publishes ~16,500. At that scale, impact factor is driven by citation density, not impact per paper. Scientific Reports' papers do get cited slightly more frequently on average, partly because Springer Nature's discoverability infrastructure is stronger and partly because the journal attracts slightly more specialized audiences who cite within a narrower scope.

For your individual paper: the IF difference doesn't predict your paper's citation rate. A well-executed study might get more citations at PLOS ONE (stronger OA + biomedical readership) than at Scientific Reports, depending on your field.

Field Communities and Where They Publish

This is where the real choice emerges.

Biomedical and biological sciences researchers heavily favor PLOS ONE. If you're in oncology, immunology, infectious disease, or molecular biology, most of your competitors publish at PLOS ONE when they need a rigor-only journal. That means your readership is there. That means you're publishing where your field expects to see work.

Physical scientists, earth scientists, materials scientists, and engineers trend toward Scientific Reports. They're more likely to see papers from peer labs at Scientific Reports.

This community effect is not mandated by the journals. It emerged over time. But it's real. Publishing where your field publishes increases visibility.

The Prestige Calculation

PLOS ONE carries nonprofit open-access credentials. Some researchers in public health and global health value that institutional positioning.

Scientific Reports carries Springer Nature credentials. Some researchers value the publisher brand.

Neither journal is prestigious in the way that Nature Communications or eLife is. Both are viewed as "solid but not selective" by most academic communities. For hiring committees and grant panels, both signal that the work is published and peer-reviewed, but neither carries prestige points.

Review Speed: The Misleading Metric

PLOS ONE: 40 days median to first decision

Scientific Reports: ~120 days

PLOS ONE is significantly faster. But the first decision is not acceptance. Most papers get revisions. By the time you resubmit revisions, PLOS ONE's speed advantage shrinks.

If you're in a hurry (thesis submission, grant deadline), PLOS ONE's faster screening matters. If speed is your priority overall, both journals are slower than you'd hope.

Which One Accepts You More Likely?

Scientific Reports has a 57% acceptance rate vs PLOS ONE's 31%. If you're uncertain about methodological rigor, Scientific Reports is a safer target. But "safer" doesn't mean better.

A paper accepted at PLOS ONE has cleared a slightly higher bar for methodological quality. A paper accepted at Scientific Reports only means it's technically sound, not that it's stronger.

If your work is methodologically exceptional, both will accept it. If your work is borderline, Scientific Reports is more forgiving.

Strategy: How to Decide

Choose PLOS ONE if:

• You work in biomedicine, biology, public health, or related fields where PLOS ONE dominance is clear
• Cost matters (lower APC, stronger fee-waiver program)
• You want faster initial decision
• Your institutional agreement covers the $1,931 APC

Choose Scientific Reports if:

• You work in physical sciences, earth science, materials science, or engineering
• Your institution has a Springer Nature read-and-publish deal (makes it free)
• You value the Springer Nature publisher positioning
• You're borderline on methodology and want the higher acceptance rate

Don't choose based on:

• Impact factor alone (the difference is real but doesn't predict your paper's citations)
• "Prestige" (neither is more prestigious than the other)
• Speed (both take 3+ months overall to publication)

What Happens If One Rejects You?

PLOS ONE has a transfer system. If rejected from PLOS Biology, PLOS Medicine, or another specialty journal, you can transfer directly to PLOS ONE with reviews intact. This is useful.

Scientific Reports has cascading transfers from Nature portfolio journals (Nature Communications, Nature Methods, etc.). If rejected from a Nature journal, you can transfer directly to Scientific Reports without new review, often with positive outcomes.

Use these pathways strategically. A paper rejected for insufficient novelty at PLOS Biology might work at PLOS ONE with reframing. A paper rejected for low impact at Nature Communications might work at Scientific Reports if you can address specific reviewer concerns.

Bottom Line

PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports are functionally equivalent for publication. Choose based on your field's publishing culture, institutional cost structures, and submission speed priorities. Neither is objectively "better." Both will publish your methodologically sound work and make it indexed and discoverable.

The meta-point: if you're deciding between these two journals, your paper is ready to publish. The choice between them is tactical, not strategic.

Related Reading

• Is PLOS ONE a good journal?
• Is Scientific Reports a good journal?
• How to choose a journal for your paper
• Megajournal publishing strategy