Scientific Reports APC and Open Access: Current Mandatory Fee, Funding, and Real Fit
Scientific Reports APC is $2,850 / €2,490. Fully open access, funding coverage, metrics context, and when the fee is worth paying.
Readiness scan
APC budgeted? See what Scientific Reports reviewers are likely to push back on.
The fee is one decision. Getting through review is the harder one. 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: Scientific Reports APC is not optional in the way many hybrid-journal APC pages are.
Scientific Reports is fully open access, and the journal's open access page lists the current APC as £2,290 / $2,850 / €2,490, subject to VAT or local taxes where applicable.
That makes this page less about whether OA is optional and more about whether this specific fully-OA venue is the right place to spend the money. For the hub, see the Scientific Reports journal page.
Scientific Reports APC at a glance
Item | Current position |
|---|---|
Journal model | Fully open access |
Current APC | £2,290 / $2,850 / €2,490 |
Subscription route | None |
Publisher | Nature Portfolio |
Institutional agreement coverage | Often available |
Journal Impact Factor (2025 JIF) | 4.9 |
5-year JIF (2025) | 4.8 |
CiteScore 2024 | 6.7 |
SJR (2025) | 0.893 |
H-index | 347 |
Acceptance rate context | About 50% range in public board materials |
Source: JIF, 5-year JIF and SJR from the Scientific Reports journal metrics (2025 values, checked 2026-10-08).
If the fee looks manageable, the more important question is whether the paper fits a soundness-first mega-journal rather than a more selective journal-family target. A Scientific Reports desk-rejection risk check is the useful first screen.
What Nature Portfolio currently says
Nature Portfolio's current OA materials are unusually clear on the core facts:
- Scientific Reports is one of the publisher's fully OA journals
- the current Scientific Reports APC is £2,290 / $2,850 / €2,490, subject to VAT or local taxes where applicable
- corresponding authors should check institutional agreement coverage
- the publisher's standard waiver and support policy can apply where eligible
The journal's own editorial-policies page adds the second useful planning fact:
- if accepted, an article processing charge applies
That means there is no real "should I choose the subscription route?" branch here. The real question is whether the journal fit is strong enough to justify paying into a fully OA model.
Metrics context behind the APC
Metric | Current figure | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
JIF (2025) | 4.9 | Mid-tier citation profile for a very high-volume broad-science journal |
5-year JIF (2025) | 4.8 | Almost level with the 2-year figure, so the 2025 JIF is not a one-year spike |
CiteScore | 6.7 | Confirms solid Scopus visibility |
SJR (2025) | 0.893 | Prestige-weighted influence is credible, not elite |
H-index | 347 | Very deep archive and enormous publication volume |
Total cites | 834,622 | Discoverability is strong because the journal is so large |
The APC here is not buying exclusivity. It is buying publication in a broad, indexed, technically sound, Nature Portfolio venue with very large output and visibility.
Long-run trend table
Year | JIF |
|---|---|
2017 | 4.1 |
2018 | 4.0 |
2019 | 3.9 |
2020 | 4.4 |
2021 | 4.6 |
2022 | 4.6 |
2023 | 4.0 |
2024 | 3.9 |
2025 | 4.9 |
The 2025 value comes from the journal's own metrics page (checked 2026-10-08); verify earlier years in JCR before quoting them. Read against this table, the 2025 JIF of 4.9 is a full point above the 2023 and 2024 values. The fee is the same either way: a one-year rise in citations does not change what the APC buys.
How to think about the fee in a fully OA journal
Because Scientific Reports is fully OA, the money question is more direct than in a hybrid title.
If you publish here
- the APC applies
- the article is immediately open
- there is no free subscription-track alternative
So the real planning sequence is
- check whether your institution or funder covers the APC
- check whether the paper genuinely fits Scientific Reports
- decide whether the journal's soundness-based model is the right editorial environment
This is a cleaner and more honest decision than in hybrid journals where authors sometimes drift into the APC decision by habit.
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
How Scientific Reports compares with nearby broad-science options
Journal | OA cost posture | 2025 JIF | Practical comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
Scientific Reports | Fully OA, $2,850 / €2,490 | 4.9 | Good for technically sound work without a novelty screen |
PLOS ONE | Fully OA | Lower | Similar soundness-first logic, different brand and field dynamics |
Nature Communications | Fully OA, much higher APC | 18.1 | Stronger selectivity and far higher cost |
Communications Biology / Chemistry / Physics | Fully OA, higher APC band | Higher | Better when the field-specific Communications lane is realistic |
Frontiers broad titles | Fully OA | Varies | Compete more on volume and speed than on Nature Portfolio positioning |
Source: 2025 JIF values from the Scientific Reports and Nature Communications journal metrics pages, checked 2026-10-08.
This comparison is where the APC becomes useful. Scientific Reports is not cheap in absolute terms, but within large fully OA science journals it is still in the more moderate Nature Portfolio tier.
What we see in pre-submission review work on Scientific Reports manuscripts
In our pre-submission review work, the worst reason to pay the Scientific Reports APC is the vague feeling that "Nature Portfolio must be safer."
That is not the right logic.
What usually works here:
- technically sound studies
- clear methods
- properly scoped claims
- papers that do not need a novelty-driven editorial filter to make sense
What usually creates regret:
- paying the APC for a paper that still has avoidable statistical or methods weaknesses
- paying because the journal looks broad and convenient while the paper is actually a better fit for a stronger field-specific venue
That is why a quick Scientific Reports submission readiness check before submission is worth more than debating the APC in isolation.
Submit if / Think twice if
Submit and consider the APC worthwhile if:
- the paper is methodologically solid and broad enough for the journal's audience
- you do not need a strong selectivity signal
- the APC is covered by a grant or institutional agreement
- immediate broad discoverability matters
Think twice if:
- the paper could plausibly clear a more selective field-specific venue
- the methods or statistics still need serious repair
- you would be paying personally without a strong reason
- the main reason for choosing the journal is brand comfort rather than editorial fit
Practical verdict
For Scientific Reports APC, the clean answer is:
- fully OA journal
- no free subscription route
- current APC of £2,290 / $2,850 / €2,490, subject to VAT or local taxes where applicable
That makes this page less about optional OA and more about making sure the journal itself is the right target before you pay.
Frequently asked questions
Scientific Reports is a fully open-access journal, and the journal currently lists the APC as £2,290 / $2,850 / €2,490, subject to VAT or local taxes where applicable. The APC price is determined from the date on which the article is accepted for publication.
Scientific Reports is fully open access. There is no subscription publication route for primary research articles, so the APC is part of the standard publication model.
Yes. Springer Nature institutional agreements can cover some or all of the APC for eligible corresponding authors.
Yes. Nature Portfolio says qualifying authors from lower-income settings can receive support, and the publisher also directs authors to its journal-specific funding page.
It is worth considering when the paper is a real fit for soundness-based review, the APC is covered by an agreement or grant, and broad multidisciplinary discoverability matters more than selectivity signaling.
Sources
Free guide
The list price is rarely the price you pay.
Waivers, funder agreements and institutional deals move it, and the deadline for most of them is submission, after which there is no appeal. Every figure in the guide was read off the publisher or funder page that sets it, on the date shown, and each one is linked at the end.
Before you upload
Want the full picture on Scientific Reports?
Scope, selectivity, what editors want, common rejection reasons, and submission context, all in one place.
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.
Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.
Put the guidance to work
Build a journal decision from more than one signal.
Use comparison data as a starting point, then confirm the live source that governs the actual submission decision.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Is Scientific Reports a Good Journal? A Practical Fit Verdict for Authors
- Scientific Reports Submission Guide: What to Prepare Before You Submit
- Scientific Reports Impact Factor 2026: 4.9, Q1, Rank 25/135
- Scientific Reports Acceptance Rate: What Authors Can Actually Use
- Scientific Reports Review Guide: What the 50% Acceptance Rate Actually Means
- Rejected from Scientific Reports? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next