Rejected from Scientific Reports? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next

• "The methodology has significant limitations that undermine the conclusions." This is the most common rejection reason, and it's the one you should take most seriously. If reviewers identified problems with your experimental design, statistical analysis, or data collection methods, those problems won't disappear at another journal. Typical issues include small sample sizes without power calculations, inappropriate statistical tests, missing controls, and post-hoc analyses presented as planned comparisons.

• "The manuscript doesn't meet our editorial criteria for publication." This vague language usually means the handling editor found the paper below the minimum threshold for the journal. It might indicate problems with English language quality, figure presentation, data availability, or adherence to reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, ARRIVE, etc.).

• "The study design doesn't adequately address the research question." Your research question was fine, but the approach you used to answer it wasn't convincing. Perhaps you used an observational design where a controlled experiment was needed, or your survey methodology had response bias issues that weren't acknowledged.

• "Ethical concerns were identified." Scientific Reports checks IRB/ethics approvals, informed consent documentation, and animal welfare compliance carefully. Missing ethics statements, unclear consent procedures, or experiments that appear to violate animal welfare guidelines can result in immediate rejection regardless of the science.

• "The paper falls outside the scope of the journal." Scientific Reports covers natural sciences, clinical research, and engineering, but it doesn't publish purely theoretical mathematics, humanities research, or certain types of social science. If you submitted a paper that sits outside their scope, the rejection is simply a routing issue.

Honestly, a rejection from Scientific Reports is a more useful signal than a rejection from a top-tier journal. When Nature rejects your paper, it might just mean the editors didn't find it exciting enough. When Scientific Reports rejects your paper, it usually means something about the execution needs work. Pay close attention to the reviewer comments, especially if they flagged specific methodological concerns.

Before choosing your next journal, a Scientific Reports manuscript fit check can tell you whether the issue was scope or something more fundamental to address first.

1. PLOS ONE

PLOS ONE is the original megajournal and remains the most direct alternative to Scientific Reports. Both journals use a technical soundness model, both cover a broad range of disciplines, and both have similar acceptance rates. The main differences are cost (PLOS ONE's APC is slightly lower) and review culture.

PLOS ONE's reviewers tend to be slightly less prescriptive about novelty than Scientific Reports' reviewers, which means papers that received mixed signals about "contribution" at Scientific Reports may find a more receptive audience. That said, PLOS ONE enforces data availability requirements strictly. If your data isn't openly accessible, make sure you can comply before submitting.

Best for: Any well-conducted research in natural sciences, social sciences, or medicine that's technically sound.

2. PeerJ

PeerJ offers faster review times and lower APCs than most megajournals. The journal covers life sciences, environmental sciences, and biological sciences, so it's slightly narrower than Scientific Reports but still broad within those areas. PeerJ's review process is transparent (authors can opt to publish reviews alongside the paper), and editorial decisions are typically faster.

One advantage: PeerJ has a membership model that allows unlimited publishing for a one-time fee, though the per-article APC is also an option. For researchers planning to publish multiple papers, the membership can be significantly cheaper.

Best for: Life sciences, environmental sciences, biology, ecology, neuroscience.

3. BMC-series journals

BMC publishes dozens of discipline-specific journals (BMC Cancer, BMC Genomics, BMC Medicine, BMC Neuroscience, etc.), and they're often a better fit than megajournals for papers with clear disciplinary homes. If your Scientific Reports rejection was partly about the paper being too specialized for a broad audience, a BMC journal in your field puts it in front of the right readers.

BMC journals use open peer review (reviewer names are published), which creates accountability on both sides. The APCs vary by journal but are generally in the $2,000-$3,000 range.

Best for: Discipline-specific research that would benefit from a targeted audience rather than a general one.

4. Heliyon

Heliyon is a Cell Press megajournal (part of the Elsevier family) that covers all academic disciplines. It's newer than PLOS ONE or Scientific Reports but has grown rapidly. The journal uses a technical soundness model and publishes across sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

The review process tends to be relatively quick, and the journal is indexed in all major databases. If your paper was rejected from Scientific Reports for scope reasons (it's too interdisciplinary or crosses traditional boundaries), Heliyon's broad scope might be a better match.

Best for: Interdisciplinary research, papers that don't fit neatly into a single discipline, broad-scope submissions.

5. IEEE Access

For engineering, computing, electronics, and technology papers, IEEE Access is a strong alternative. The journal is open access and publishes rapidly, with a focus on technical soundness rather than perceived novelty. If your Scientific Reports submission was an engineering or computer science paper, IEEE Access puts it in front of the right technical community.

IEEE Access has a binary acceptance model: if the paper is technically sound and the writing is clear, it gets published. The editorial board is composed of practicing engineers and computer scientists who evaluate technical merit efficiently.

Best for: Electrical engineering, computer science, telecommunications, signal processing, machine learning applications.

6. Frontiers series

Frontiers operates a network of open-access journals organized by discipline (Frontiers in Microbiology, Frontiers in Neuroscience, Frontiers in Medicine, etc.). Each journal has its own editorial board and scope, but the Frontiers publishing model is consistent across titles: open access, collaborative review, and a focus on validity over novelty.

Review times at Frontiers can be longer than at other megajournals (some authors report 3-4 months), but the review process is interactive, with a discussion phase between reviewers and authors before a final decision. This can lead to more constructive outcomes than the traditional back-and-forth.

Best for: Discipline-specific research where Frontiers has a strong title in your area (microbiology, neuroscience, immunology, etc.).

7. SAGE Open

For social science and interdisciplinary research, SAGE Open is an affordable option. The APC is significantly lower than most open-access journals ($1,000), making it accessible for researchers without large grant budgets. The journal covers social sciences, behavioral sciences, and humanities.

If your Scientific Reports rejection was for a social science paper that the editors felt was outside scope, SAGE Open is purpose-built for that kind of work.

Best for: Social sciences, education research, management, psychology, interdisciplinary humanities-science work.

Rejected for methodological issues? Fix the methodology first. No journal will accept a paper with fundamental design flaws. If the sample size was too small, you need more data, not a different journal. If the statistical approach was wrong, consult a statistician before resubmitting.

Rejected for scope? Match your paper to the right discipline-specific journal. BMC-series journals, Frontiers titles, and society journals in your field are all better fits than another megajournal if the issue was editorial scope.

Rejected for data quality or reporting? Review the relevant reporting guidelines (CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational studies, ARRIVE for animal research) and ensure full compliance. Make raw data available in a repository. Then submit to PLOS ONE or PeerJ, both of which enforce these standards but appreciate when authors comply thoroughly.

Rejected for English language quality? Get professional editing before resubmitting. Submitting the same poorly written manuscript to another journal will produce the same result. Most universities have writing centers, and professional editing services typically cost $500-$1,500 for a research article.

Vague rejection with no useful feedback? Try PLOS ONE first (most similar editorial model) or a Frontiers journal in your discipline (interactive review process that may give you better feedback even if the outcome is the same).

Address every reviewer concern, even if you disagree. If Scientific Reports provided reviewer comments, don't ignore the points you disagree with. Either fix the issue or write a clear explanation of why the reviewer's concern doesn't apply. The next journal's reviewers may raise the same points.

Improve your figures and tables. Megajournals receive thousands of submissions, and editors make quick initial assessments. Clear, well-labeled figures with appropriate statistical annotations (error bars, significance markers, sample sizes) make a strong first impression. Messy figures suggest messy science, even when that's not true.

Ensure complete data availability. Both PLOS ONE and PeerJ require data to be publicly available. If your data is sensitive (patient data, proprietary datasets), explain your data access plan clearly in the manuscript.

Double-check your ethics statements. Missing IRB approvals, unclear consent documentation, or absent animal welfare statements are immediate rejection triggers at every journal. Make sure every required ethics statement is present and correctly formatted in your manuscript.

Run a reporting guideline checklist. Download the appropriate checklist for your study type (EQUATOR Network maintains all of them) and ensure every item is addressed. Incomplete reporting is one of the easiest problems to fix and one of the most common reasons for rejection at megajournals.

A Scientific Reports rejection is an opportunity to strengthen your paper before it goes to another venue. The feedback you received, whether it was specific reviewer comments or a general editorial assessment, contains information you can use. Take a day to process the rejection, then read the feedback objectively. Run your revised manuscript through a manuscript scope and readiness check to identify structural gaps, formatting issues, and scope alignment problems before your next submission. The goal isn't just to find a journal that will accept the paper as-is. It's to submit a stronger version of the paper to the right journal.

Resubmit to the same tier if:

• Reviewers praised the science but identified specific fixable issues
• The rejection letter suggested "consider resubmission after addressing concerns"
• You can complete the requested revisions within 2-3 months
• No competing paper has appeared since your submission

Move to a different journal if:

• The rejection cited scope mismatch rather than quality concerns
• Multiple reviewers questioned the significance or novelty
• Your timeline requires a decision within the next 2-3 months
• A more specialized journal's readership would value the work more

Reframe the manuscript before resubmitting anywhere if:

• Reviewers identified fundamental methodology problems
• The core argument needs restructuring, not just polishing
• New experiments or analyses are needed to support the claims
• The rejection exposed a gap between claims and evidence

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Scientific Reports, four patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before resubmission.

Scope outside natural sciences, technology, or medicine. Scientific Reports' stated scope is natural sciences, technology, and medicine. We see this failure as the most common pattern in Scientific Reports desk rejections we review: papers from social sciences, humanities, or applied engineering without a clear scientific foundation submitting to Scientific Reports under the assumption that its broad scope is essentially unlimited. In our review of Scientific Reports submissions, we find that editors consistently redirect papers whose primary methodology or contribution is outside the natural sciences.

Methodological soundness concerns that violate Scientific Reports' core editorial standard. Scientific Reports' editorial model is scientific soundness, not novelty, but soundness failures generate desk rejection. We see this pattern in Scientific Reports submissions we review with methodological problems visible from the paper's design: no control conditions in experimental studies, sample sizes without power justification, or observational data with causal conclusions unsupported by the study design. Editors return these for methodological remediation before peer review.

Reporting guideline non-compliance for clinical and observational studies. Scientific Reports requires CONSORT compliance for randomized trials, STROBE for observational studies, and ARRIVE for animal experiments. We see this pattern in relevant submissions we review: clinical papers submitted without completed checklists, or animal studies where housing, randomization, and blinding details are absent from the methods. These compliance gaps generate desk returns independently of the scientific quality.

Ethical approval documentation absent or insufficient. Scientific Reports requires explicit ethics committee approval statements and informed consent documentation. We see this failure regularly in manuscripts we review from certain geographic regions: human subjects research where ethics approval is stated but the approving body is not identified, or where consent procedures are described in terms too vague to evaluate.

SciRev community data for Scientific Reports confirms desk rejections typically arrive within days, with post-review first decisions within 6-10 weeks, consistent with the Nature Portfolio editorial cadence for its broad-scope open-access journals.