Scientific Reports' AI Policy: Springer Nature Rules at Mega-Journal Scale
Scientific Reports follows the Nature Portfolio AI policy, and its submission guidelines say LLM use should be documented in Methods, with enforcement at megajournal volume likely to lean on author self-reporting.
Readiness scan
AI policy covered? See what Scientific Reports reviewers are likely to push back on.
The AI policy governs disclosure, not how the science is judged. Run the Free Readiness Scan with Scientific Reports as your target to see desk-rejection risk, likely reviewer concerns, and journal fit.
Scientific Reports at a glance
The figures Scientific Reports publishes about speed, selectivity and cost, each linked to the page we read it on. They describe the journal, not your manuscript's chances.
Quick answer: Here's the paradox of Scientific Reports: it follows the same Nature Portfolio AI policy as Nature, but it publishes far more papers. Both follow a policy that does not allow AI authorship or photorealistic AI-generated images (deepfakes), and Scientific Reports' submission guidelines say use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section. The framework is the same on paper.
In practice, the enforcement dynamics at a megajournal are fundamentally different from a journal with a small, highly selective output. Understanding that gap is what matters for authors.
Scientific Reports AI Policy at a Glance
- AI authorship: Prohibited. AI tools cannot be listed as authors and cannot take accountability for the work.
- AI disclosure: The submission guidelines say use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section. The AI policy page says transparent declaration of AI builds trust and asks for disclosure where AI use is evaluative or interpretive.
- AI-generated images: Creating photorealistic images (deepfakes) is listed as not permitted.
- Language editing: Using an LLM to polish or refine language is listed as permitted (low risk), and disclosure is encouraged. Extensive copy editing or writing support is permitted with human oversight, verification and disclosure.
The Springer Nature AI policy
Scientific Reports reproduces the Nature Portfolio AI policy on its own journal policies page, and its submission guidelines add a Methods-documentation line for LLM use. The main points:
- AI can't be an author. LLMs and generative AI tools don't meet authorship criteria.
- LLM use should be documented in Methods. The submission guidelines say so, and the AI policy page asks for transparent declaration. Name the tool, describe how it was used, specify which sections.
- Photorealistic AI-generated images (deepfakes) are not permitted. Fabricating data, citations or results with AI is also listed as not permitted.
- Language polishing is permitted. Using an LLM to polish or refine the language is a low-risk use, and disclosure is encouraged. Extensive copy editing or writing support calls for human oversight, verification and disclosure.
- Authors bear full responsibility for all content, including AI-assisted sections.
These rules are published as Nature Portfolio editorial policy and repeated on the Scientific Reports journal policies page.
Scale: what high volume means for enforcement
Scientific Reports is a very high-volume journal, and that scale fundamentally shapes how AI policy works in practice. The volume and acceptance figures below are unofficial estimates, not figures the journals publish:
Metric | Scientific Reports | Nature | Nature Communications |
|---|---|---|---|
Articles/year | ~20,000 | ~900 | ~6,000 |
Acceptance rate | ~50% (journal's board FAQ, July 2022) | ~7% | ~15-20% |
Editorial model | Academic editors | In-house editors | In-house + academic editors |
Per-paper editorial time | Low | Very high | Moderate |
AI screening capacity | Limited per paper | High per paper | Moderate per paper |
The key implication: at Nature, an in-house editor might notice that your Methods section is missing an AI disclosure. At Scientific Reports, with academic editors handling manuscripts across all disciplines, per-paper AI compliance checking is likely to be less systematic.
This doesn't mean AI policy doesn't matter at Scientific Reports. It means the consequences of non-disclosure are more likely to emerge after publication, through reader comments, PubPeer posts, or Springer Nature's post-publication integrity team, rather than being caught during editorial review.
The academic editor model
Scientific Reports doesn't use a traditional small editorial team. Instead, editorial decisions are made by an Editorial Board of active researchers, supported by in-house editors.
Each academic editor:
- Decides whether to send a manuscript for peer review
- Selects reviewers
- Makes the editorial decision based on technical soundness
- Works alongside an initial quality check that tests compliance with Nature Portfolio editorial and publishing policies
The variability this creates is real. Some academic editors are highly attentive to AI disclosure; others focus primarily on the scientific content. Your AI compliance shouldn't depend on which editor happens to handle your paper, it should be thorough regardless.
Writing the disclosure for Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports reviews for soundness across all disciplines. The disclosure format should be clear and universal:
Standard disclosure:
"During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) to improve the language and clarity of the manuscript. All AI-generated suggestions were reviewed by the authors, who take full responsibility for the content of the published article."
For a paper with computational analysis:
"The authors used GitHub Copilot (Microsoft) to assist with writing MATLAB scripts for the signal processing analysis. ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) was used to improve the readability of the Discussion section. All code was validated against established processing pipelines, and all text was reviewed by the authors."
For an engineering paper:
"During manuscript preparation, Claude (Claude 3.5, Anthropic) was used to edit the Results section for language clarity. The finite element analysis was performed using ABAQUS 2023 without AI assistance. The authors take full responsibility for the published content."
For a social science paper:
"The authors used ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) to improve the English language of this manuscript, which was originally drafted in Portuguese. All translated and edited text was reviewed for accuracy by two bilingual co-authors (M.S. and R.T.). The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 28 without AI assistance."
What requires disclosure
Use case | Disclosure required? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
Using an LLM to polish or refine the language | Permitted (low risk) | Disclosure encouraged; submission guidelines say document LLM use in Methods |
Suggesting structure or formatting of manuscript sections | Permitted (low risk) | Disclosure encouraged |
Data cleaning and deduplication | Permitted (low risk) | Disclosure encouraged |
Extensive copy editing or writing support | Permitted with caution | Human oversight, verification and disclosure |
Recommending statistical tests or modelling approaches | Permitted with caution | Human oversight, verification and disclosure |
Comparing results to existing literature | Permitted with caution | Human oversight, verification and disclosure |
Fabricating data, citations or results | Not permitted | Listed as a red-tier use |
Generating hypotheses, analyses or conclusions presented as human-derived | Not permitted | Listed as a red-tier use |
Creating photorealistic images (deepfakes) | Not permitted | Listed as a red-tier use |
Assigning authorship or accountability to AI | Not permitted | Authors remain fully accountable |
Consequences of non-disclosure
Springer Nature enforcement applies, scaled for volume:
During review:
- Academic editor or reviewer flags concern
- Author asked to add disclosure
- Deliberate concealment can lead to rejection
After publication:
- Depending on severity, the journal may issue a correction or Addendum, an Editor's Note or Editorial Expression of Concern, or a retraction
- Concerns raised directly by authors and readers are investigated, and the author's institution may be informed if potentially serious issues are identified
The post-publication enforcement shift: At Scientific Reports, a higher proportion of AI disclosure issues are likely caught after publication than during review. This isn't because the journal is lax, it's because the volume makes pre-publication screening less thorough per paper. The practical implication: the risk of undisclosed AI use at Scientific Reports isn't lower than at Nature, it's just delayed. And post-publication corrections are arguably more damaging than pre-publication additions because they're visible to everyone who's already read the paper.
What this means for you: Don't gamble on the volume providing cover.
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Comparison with other mega-journals
Feature | Scientific Reports | PLOS ONE | PeerJ | IEEE Access | Frontiers journals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Publisher | Springer Nature | PLOS | PeerJ | IEEE | Frontiers |
Articles/year | ~20,000 | ~15,000 | ~3,000 | ~15,000 | Varies |
AI authorship | Prohibited | Prohibited | Prohibited | Prohibited | Prohibited |
Disclosure location | Methods | Methods | Methods | Methods | Methods |
AI image ban | Photorealistic images (deepfakes) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Access model | Gold OA | Gold OA | Gold OA | Gold OA | Gold OA |
APC | $2,850 | ~$2,477 | ~$1,395 | $2,160 | Varies |
Review standard | Technical soundness | Technical soundness | Technical soundness | Technical soundness | Significance + soundness |
Scientific Reports and PLOS ONE are the two largest journals by volume. Both use technical soundness as the primary review criterion. Both have similar AI policies. The main difference is the publisher infrastructure: Scientific Reports benefits from Springer Nature's portfolio-wide integrity tools, while PLOS ONE has its own systems.
IEEE Access handles a similar volume but focuses on engineering and technology. Its AI policy follows IEEE standards, which are broadly similar but with some field-specific nuances for computational papers.
How Scientific Reports fits in the Springer Nature portfolio
Aspect (volume figures are unofficial estimates) | Nature | Nature Communications | Scientific Reports |
|---|---|---|---|
Same AI policy | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Articles/year | ~900 | ~6,000 | ~20,000 |
Selectivity | Very high | High | Technical soundness |
APC | N/A (subscription) | ~$7,350 | $2,850 |
Editorial model | In-house editors | In-house + academic | Academic editors |
Per-paper editorial investment | Very high | High | Moderate |
Post-publication visibility | Extremely high | Very high | High |
Papers rejected by Nature or Nature Communications sometimes find their way to Scientific Reports. If your paper was rejected from a higher-tier Springer Nature journal and you're resubmitting to Scientific Reports, your AI disclosure from the original submission should carry over, update it if you used additional AI tools during revision.
Practical advice for Scientific Reports submissions
For all submissions:
- Don't assume the lower selectivity means relaxed AI enforcement. The policy is the same Nature Portfolio policy that applies to Nature.
- Write your AI disclosure as if it will be scrutinized, because it might be, either during review or after publication.
- If you're a non-native English speaker using AI for language editing, this is a permitted low-risk use. Just disclose it.
For resubmissions from other Springer Nature journals:
- Carry over your AI disclosure from the original submission
- Update it if you used additional AI tools during revision
- Don't remove the disclosure to make the paper look "cleaner"
For computational and data science papers:
- Deposit code in a public repository
- Note which portions were AI-assisted
- Scientific Reports accepts papers across all disciplines, the reviewers you get may or may not have computational expertise, so make your AI use clear to any reader
For papers with non-English origins:
- Disclose translation and language editing AI use
- Specify the source language and the AI tool used
- Language editing with AI falls under the low-risk assistive uses the journal's AI policy permits
Before submission checklist:
- [ ] AI disclosure in Methods section
- [ ] Tool name, version, and use case specified
- [ ] No photorealistic AI-generated images (deepfakes)
- [ ] Code deposited if applicable
- [ ] All co-authors aware of disclosure
- [ ] Disclosure carries over from any previous submission to another journal
A Scientific Reports AI policy compliance check can verify your submission meets Springer Nature's current disclosure and attribution standards before you submit.
What should you do about Scientific Reports''s AI policy?
Comply proactively if:
- You used any AI tool (ChatGPT, Grammarly, Copilot) during manuscript preparation
- The journal requires AI use disclosure in the methods or acknowledgments
- Your institution has its own AI use policy that may be stricter
Less concerned if:
- You used AI only for grammar/spell checking (most journals exempt this)
- The journal does not have a formal AI policy yet
- Your use was limited to literature search or reference management
Frequently asked questions
Yes, with transparency. Scientific Reports follows the Nature Portfolio AI policy, which permits assistive uses such as polishing language, permits evaluative or interpretive uses with human oversight, verification and disclosure, and does not permit uses that replace scholarly judgement or lack transparency. The submission guidelines say use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section. AI can't be an author.
Not in its framework. The journal's AI policy page reproduces the Nature Portfolio policy, so Nature Portfolio journals such as Scientific Reports, Nature and Nature Communications follow the same risk framework. Scientific Reports' submission guidelines also say use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section.
At this scale, enforcement is likely to rely heavily on author self-reporting and on concerns raised by reviewers and readers, so individual editorial scrutiny per paper may be limited. Honest disclosure is essential.
No. Scientific Reports uses a technical soundness review standard, it doesn't reject papers based on significance or novelty. Disclosing AI use won't negatively affect your paper's chances. Not disclosing it, if discovered, will.
Depending on the nature and severity of the issue, the journal may issue a correction or Addendum, an Editor's Note or Editorial Expression of Concern, or a retraction. Scientific Reports' fully open-access model means corrections are publicly visible to all readers.
Sources
Free guide
AI cannot be an author. None of the 49 policies we checked allows it.
Not a co-author, not an acknowledged contributor with a byline, not "with assistance from". What they do require is a disclosure, and the wording matters. The guide has the statement filled in, with what each publisher asks for beside it.
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.
Put the guidance to work
Choose the practical next step for your research.
Start with the question in front of you, or use the guided learning path when you want a clearer view of the full publishing process.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Scientific Reports Submission Guide: What to Prepare Before You Submit
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Scientific Reports
- Is Scientific Reports a Good Journal? A Practical Fit Verdict for Authors
- Rejected from Scientific Reports? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next
- Scientific Reports Submission Process: What Happens and What Editors Judge First
- Scientific Reports Pre-Submission Checklist: Is Your Paper Ready?