PNAS vs Scientific Reports: Choosing Between Two Multidisciplinary Journals

PNAS and Scientific Reports both publish across all scientific disciplines. But they're not equivalent venues. One filters for novelty and significance. The other filters for methodological rigor. Knowing which is which will save you months.

Metrics Comparison

PNAS accepts one paper for every ~6.5 submissions. Scientific Reports accepts more than half. The difference isn't just selectivity. It's editorial philosophy.

What PNAS Wants

PNAS wants work that advances understanding. Not just confirms existing models, but actually moves the field forward. The Significance Statement (mandatory 120 words) forces authors to articulate why non-specialists should care.

This means:

• Genuine novelty (not just a new substrate on an old reaction)
• Methodological rigor (obviously)
• Cross-disciplinary relevance (your finding should matter beyond specialists)
• Complete experimental stories (not preliminary observations)

The combination is what makes PNAS selective. A methodologically perfect paper with an incremental finding won't get through. A novel finding with methodological gaps will get flagged in revision. You need both.

What Scientific Reports Wants

Scientific Reports cares about methodology. Did you do the science correctly? Are controls appropriate? Are statistics sound? Can someone else reproduce your work?

Novelty is irrelevant. A perfectly executed study documenting an expected phenomenon is publishable. A novel preliminary observation with weak methodology is not.

This makes Scientific Reports more accessible. The bar is not "does this change science" but "is this done well."

The Significance Statement Test

Here's a practical filter: Can you write a compelling 120-word explanation of your finding's significance for non-specialists?

If yes, PNAS might work. The ability to articulate significance is part of PNAS's selection criterion.

If you struggle with this, or if the only audience is specialists in your specific subfield, Scientific Reports is a better fit.

Real-World Differences

Example 1: Novel transcription factor binding site

A lab discovers that a disease-associated variant sits in a previously uncharacterized transcription factor binding site and regulates immune cell function.

At PNAS: Novel finding with mechanistic depth and broad relevance. Advances understanding of how genetics drives immunology. Likely gets reviewed.

At Scientific Reports: Solid mechanistic work, but it's a single finding in a single system. Incremental relative to existing knowledge of TF biology. Still publishable, but doesn't excite editors the same way.

Example 2: Large epidemiological study

A team analyzes 100,000 patient records and finds that a common comorbidity pattern predicts outcomes with 80% accuracy. The finding is novel (hasn't been systematically documented) and clinically useful.

At PNAS: Novel observation with practical clinical application and methodological rigor. Advances understanding of disease mechanisms and prediction. Likely gets reviewed.

At Scientific Reports: Methodologically excellent large-scale study. Rigorously analyzed. Publishable with high confidence.

Both papers can get accepted at either journal. But PNAS editors will be more enthusiastic about the novelty angle, while Scientific Reports editors care equally whether the finding is novel or confirmatory.

Cost Difference

PNAS subscription: free

PNAS optional OA: $1,350

Scientific Reports: $2,490 mandatory OA (unless Springer Nature agreement covers it)

PNAS is dramatically cheaper. If cost matters, PNAS wins. And if your institution has a Springer Nature read-and-publish deal, the cost difference disappears.

Speed Comparison

PNAS: ~45 days to first decision (fast)

Scientific Reports: ~120 days to first decision (slower)

PNAS is significantly faster. But note: this is time to first decision, not acceptance. If major revisions are requested at PNAS (common), the revision timeline can add months.

Strategic Decision

Try PNAS first if:

• Your finding is genuinely novel (not just a new application of existing knowledge)
• It has significance beyond your specialty (non-specialists should care)
• You can write a compelling Significance Statement
• You have time to wait for peer review (good signal of genuine novelty)

Skip PNAS and go to Scientific Reports if:

• Your finding is methodologically solid but incremental
• Novelty is marginal or within-field only
• You can't easily articulate significance for non-specialists
• Cost matters and you don't have a Springer deal

Can you try both?

Yes, sequentially. Submit to PNAS first. If rejected (likely, given 15% acceptance), reframe for Scientific Reports:

• Remove the novelty claims
• Emphasize the methodological contribution
• Highlight utility to the field
• Focus on rigor, not significance

This reframing works because the papers are fundamentally the same. The scientific contribution is solid. The journal emphasis just shifts.

What If Your Paper Is Borderline?

If you're genuinely unsure whether your finding is novel enough for PNAS, here's a test: Would a reader who's not in your exact subfield find it interesting? Would it change how they think?

If you're uncertain, the answer is probably no. Genuinely novel findings usually feel obviously important.

Go with Scientific Reports. You'll have a higher acceptance chance and faster timeline, and you'll publish solid science.

Bottom Line

PNAS and Scientific Reports are both excellent journals for multidisciplinary science. But they select for different things. PNAS wants novelty plus rigor. Scientific Reports wants rigor, novelty optional.

Know which your paper is, and submit accordingly. Submitting to the wrong journal costs time without gaining prestige.

Related Reading

• PNAS submission guide
• Is Scientific Reports a good journal?
• How to tell if your paper is ready for PNAS