SCIENCE vs Scientific Reports: Which Should You Submit To?

SCIENCE accepts only research that represents a major conceptual advance. The work must answer a fundamental question in a way that reshapes how the field thinks. SCIENCE's own standards state they seek papers of "outstanding significance in their fields." Editors are notoriously selective at the desk stage. If they're unsure whether your paper is truly paradigm-shifting, they reject it. Roughly 95% of SCIENCE submissions never go to peer review.

Scientific Reports uses peer review more liberally. The criterion is: Is the research scientifically sound, novel, and of interest to a recognizable research community? You don't need to reshape your field. A solid mechanistic study, a new method, a validated biomarker - these qualify if executed well and reviewed favorably.

In practice: a new technique that improves your subfield will be desk-rejected at SCIENCE in 1-2 weeks. The same paper will sail through Scientific Reports. A landmark discovery that defines a new biological pathway might make SCIENCE; it will certainly make Scientific Reports, but SCIENCE is where it belongs.

Both journals are truly multidisciplinary. SCIENCE publishes biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, geology, engineering, psychology, and more. Scientific Reports similarly spans all disciplines. The difference isn't scope - it's impact threshold. A paper either represents a field-level advance (SCIENCE) or a solid incremental advance (Scientific Reports).

SCIENCE: Approximately 6% of full submissions are accepted. This includes papers desk-rejected and those sent to peer review. Of papers sent to full peer review, acceptance is around 30% - but only ~5% of submissions ever reach that stage.

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

Put plainly: 19 out of 20 SCIENCE submissions are rejected. 6 out of 10 Scientific Reports submissions are rejected. Your odds are vastly better at Scientific Reports.

SCIENCE: ~14 days to first decision in the current Manusights canonical data.

Scientific Reports: 21 days median to first editorial decision.

SCIENCE: Subscription journal (published by AAAS). No article processing charge for authors. Published papers are behind a paywall, though authors may self-archive on preprint servers and personal websites.

Scientific Reports: Full open-access journal. The current listed APC is £2,190 / $2,850 / €2,490. Once accepted, your article is free to read worldwide, with broad CC-BY reuse rights.

SCIENCE's model makes publication cost-free; Scientific Reports requires a fee (though waivers/reductions are available). If open-access publication is essential to your work, Scientific Reports is the clear choice. If cost is prohibitive, SCIENCE's free model is appealing (though acceptance is much harder).

SCIENCE editors make ruthless triage decisions. They read thousands of abstracts and make split-second judgments about whether a paper might be paradigm-shifting. If they have doubt, rejection wins. Very few papers survive this filter; those that do go to peers who are also elite scientists. The bar is extraordinary.

Scientific Reports editors evaluate papers on scientific merit and novelty without requiring field-level significance. More papers go to peer review. More papers get reviewer feedback and a chance to revise. It's a fairer system for solid work that doesn't claim world-changing status.

Ask yourself: Does this paper answer a fundamental question that reshapes my field?

• Paradigm-shifting breakthrough: Submit to SCIENCE first. This is the right venue. If rejected, Scientific Reports is a strong fallback.

• Major advance that will be widely cited and referenced: SCIENCE is worth trying. Your paper is in the conversation. Rejection is likely, but the effort is worth it.

• Solid, novel work with good data and clear significance: Scientific Reports is your journal. You'll publish reliably. Chasing SCIENCE will waste months and end in rejection.

• Incremental advance, narrow finding, or methodological contribution: Scientific Reports. SCIENCE will desk-reject in 2 weeks. Scientific Reports will evaluate fairly.

If you're uncertain whether your paper is "SCIENCE-level," it probably isn't. Not because your work is bad - but because SCIENCE-level discoveries are rare and usually obvious once framed. If you have to debate whether your paper meets SCIENCE's bar, Scientific Reports is the prudent target. You'll publish, reach your community, and gain credibility.

Many excellent scientists publish regularly in Scientific Reports and rarely (if ever) in SCIENCE. This is completely normal and professional.

Some researchers submit to SCIENCE and simultaneously prepare Scientific Reports as a backup. Get your SCIENCE decision first (expect rejection). Then, if rejected, revise based on feedback and submit to Scientific Reports. Reviewer comments from SCIENCE (if sent to review) can strengthen your Scientific Reports submission. This is an efficient, realistic path.

SCIENCE and Scientific Reports are both peer-reviewed, legitimate journals - but they serve radically different purposes. SCIENCE is where the field's breakthroughs live. Scientific Reports is where most solid science lives. Both are prestigious; SCIENCE is in a different category altogether.

Publishing in Scientific Reports is a genuine achievement and a mark of quality peer-reviewed research. Many elite scientists have papers there. It's the right home for solid science that isn't a paradigm shift - which describes most research.

Most researchers aren't actually choosing between Science and Scientific Reports directly. They're trying to calibrate which tier their paper fits. Here's the AAAS/Nature Portfolio cascade:

If Science desk-rejects your paper, the natural next step within AAAS is Science Advances (IF 12.5), not Scientific Reports (different publisher). If you're in the Nature Portfolio, the cascade runs Nature -> Nature-branded specialty -> Nature Communications -> Scientific Reports.

Don't skip from Science directly to Scientific Reports. There are strong intermediate options that deserve consideration first.

If you are considering Science but not sure whether the paper reaches that bar, a Science vs. Scientific Reports scope check gives you a realistic read on journal fit and what would need to change to compete at the highest tier.