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 say they seek papers that are "influential in their fields or across fields." Editors are notoriously selective at the desk stage. If they're unsure whether your paper is truly paradigm-shifting, they reject it. Science's 2025 metrics list a 15.0% review rate, so about 85% of submissions never go to peer review.

Scientific Reports uses peer review more liberally. The criterion is: Is the research scientifically valid and technically sound? Scientific Reports does not assess manuscripts on their perceived importance, significance or impact. 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: The 2025 journal metrics list a 5.3% accept rate on 15,088 submissions (research articles, reports and research resources). Only 15.0% of submissions were externally reviewed, so about 85% never reached peer review.

Scientific Reports: approximately 50% overall acceptance, per the journal's editorial-board FAQ (a PDF dated July 2022).

Put plainly: 19 out of 20 SCIENCE submissions are rejected. Roughly 5 out of 10 Scientific Reports submissions are rejected. Your odds are vastly better at Scientific Reports.

SCIENCE: the 2025 journal metrics list a median of 8 days from submission to first decision (send to review or reject), 64 days to the first post-review decision, and 184 days to acceptance.

Scientific Reports: Nature Portfolio's 2025 metrics list a median of 12 days to first editorial decision and 138 days to acceptance.

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 £2,290 / $2,850 / €2,490. Once accepted, your article is free to read worldwide, published under a CC BY-NC-ND or CC BY license.

SCIENCE's author pages describe no article processing charge (print color figures do carry a charge); 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 no-APC 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 validity and technical soundness 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 JIF 13.9, 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.