PNAS vs Scientific Reports: Which Should You Submit To?

PNAS seeks research of high interest and significance to multiple fields or to a major discipline. Your work should represent a meaningful advance that opens new directions or provides breakthrough insights. PNAS is not as extreme as SCIENCE or Nature in requiring paradigm-level shifts, but it does require that your work be of substantial interest beyond a narrow subspecialty. Editors screen aggressively; roughly 40% of submissions are desk-rejected without peer review.

Scientific Reports uses a simpler criterion: Is the research scientifically sound and novel? Does it represent a legitimate contribution to the literature? If yes, it's publishable. The journal doesn't require broad interdisciplinary interest or major breakthrough status. Narrow, specialized work is welcome if well-executed.

In practice: a detailed study of a single disease mechanism would be rejected or edge-rejected at PNAS ("Limited broader significance"). That same paper would be suitable for Scientific Reports. A major finding about a fundamental biological process would have a reasonable shot at PNAS and would certainly be accepted at Scientific Reports.

Both journals are multidisciplinary and accept research across biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, engineering, social sciences, and more. Neither restricts by field. The difference is the significance bar: PNAS wants high-impact contributions across disciplines; Scientific Reports wants solid contributions within research communities, regardless of breadth.

If your work is important to specialists but of limited broader interest, PNAS is unlikely to accept it. Scientific Reports will consider it seriously.

PNAS: ~15% acceptance rate based on available data, though the precise official rate is harder to verify from accessible publisher pages.

Scientific Reports: ~57% acceptance rate based on current estimates.

PNAS acceptance is highly selective - about 1 in 12-15 papers make it. Scientific Reports is selective but far more open - about 3-4 in 10 papers succeed. Your odds are 4-6× better at Scientific Reports.

PNAS: ~45 days to first decision based on current Manusights data.

Scientific Reports: 21 days median to first editorial decision.

Both are moderately quick by traditional journal standards, though PNAS can be slow if extensive revision is requested.

PNAS: Subscription model with open-access option. Authors can choose to publish open-access by paying a fee (approximately $1,500–1,800 USD), or publish behind the paywall at no cost. Most authors choose the free, subscription option.

Scientific Reports: Full open-access journal. The current listed APC is £2,190 / $2,850 / €2,490. All published articles are free to read and reuse.

If open-access is mandatory or important to your work, you'll pay for both journals (or for PNAS's optional open-access fee). If cost is a barrier, PNAS's free subscription model is advantageous.

PNAS editors are senior scientists from the National Academy. They screen submissions carefully and desk-reject papers they judge as insufficiently significant or broadly interesting. This is efficient but can be harsh - you may not get detailed feedback if rejected without review. Papers that pass the desk screen go to rigorous peer review.

Scientific Reports editors send most papers to peer review unless they're clearly out of scope. You're more likely to get detailed reviewer feedback, even if ultimately rejected. The review process feels more equitable and generous with constructive critique.

Ask yourself: Is my paper a significant advance for a broad research community?

• Major discovery with broad significance: Try PNAS. Your work likely merits the effort. If rejected, Scientific Reports is a strong option - your paper is still excellent.

• Solid advance of interest to your field or subfield: Could go either way. If you're confident in your work's significance, PNAS is worth trying. Otherwise, Scientific Reports is the confident choice.

• Novel, solid work limited to a subfield or application: Scientific Reports. PNAS will likely desk-reject. Scientific Reports is designed for this - you'll publish and reach your community effectively.

• Methods paper, narrow finding, or specialized study: Scientific Reports is the right home. PNAS will reject. Scientific Reports welcomes it.

Many researchers submit to PNAS strategically. If rejected (likely), revise based on feedback and submit to Scientific Reports. The peer review from PNAS (if sent to review) often strengthens the manuscript for submission elsewhere. This sequential approach is professional and common.

Simultaneous submission is not permitted; submit to PNAS first (expect 2-4 weeks for decision), then move to Scientific Reports if needed.

PNAS is an elite, prestigious journal where major advances are published. Its selectivity reflects genuine standards for high-impact research. Scientific Reports is an excellent, open-access alternative for solid science that doesn't quite reach PNAS's significance bar - which describes the majority of published research, and that's perfectly fine.

Publishing in Scientific Reports is an achievement. It means your work passed peer review, met standards for novelty and rigor, and contributes meaningfully to the literature. Many excellent scientists publish primarily in journals like Scientific Reports. The prestige gap with PNAS is real but shouldn't discourage you from pursuing the right venue for your work.

If you are debating between PNAS and Scientific Reports, a PNAS vs. Scientific Reports scope check can tell you whether your manuscript's significance level matches PNAS expectations or is better suited to a broader-scope journal.

If you've read this far and still aren't sure, here's the blunt version:

The two journals serve different purposes and there's no shame in either choice. PNAS (IF 9.1, JCI 2.30, Q1, rank 14/135) is for work with broad cross-disciplinary reach. Scientific Reports (IF 3.9, JCI 1.07, Q1, rank 25/135) is for solid science that doesn't need the PNAS significance test. Most published research falls in the second category, and that's fine.

If you're still on the fence, a PNAS vs. Scientific Reports scope check can evaluate whether your manuscript's significance level matches PNAS or is better suited to Scientific Reports.

Last verified against JCR 2024 data for PNAS (IF 9.1, Q1, rank 14/135) and Scientific Reports (IF 3.9, Q1, rank 25/135).