Scientific Reports Impact Factor 2025: JIF, Tier, and Submission Fit
Targeting Scientific Reports?
See scope, acceptance rate, submission tips, and what editors actually want.
Scientific Reports has a Journal Impact Factor of 3.9 in JCR 2024. That's the figure referenced as "Scientific Reports impact factor 2025," since JCR 2024 data is released in mid-2025 and used through 2026.
Quick Numbers
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor (JCR 2024) | 3.9 |
5-Year Impact Factor | 4.3 |
Publisher | Springer Nature |
Open access | Fully open access |
APC | ~$2,190 |
Acceptance rate | ~57% |
Review model | Technical soundness only |
What 3.9 Means in Context
Scientific Reports is a megajournal. It doesn't select for significance or novelty — only technical soundness. That's by design, and it's why the acceptance rate is relatively high.
Journal | IF | Selectivity model |
|---|---|---|
15.7 | Significance + soundness | |
5.1 | Significance within biology | |
Scientific Reports | 3.9 | Technical soundness only |
2.6 | Technical soundness only |
Scientific Reports and PLOS ONE occupy the same tier and review model, but Scientific Reports carries the "Nature Portfolio" branding and a slightly higher IF.
IF Trend Over Time
Scientific Reports' IF has been declining:
- 2020: 4.4
- 2021: 4.6
- 2022: 4.6
- 2023: 3.8
- 2024: 3.9
The downward pressure comes from the journal's large publication volume (over 20,000 articles/year). More papers means citations get spread thinner.
Is 3.9 "Good Enough"?
It depends entirely on context:
3.9 is reasonable if:
- You need a respectable indexed venue for solid technical work
- Your field has comparable or lower specialist journal IFs
- Speed and certainty of publication matter more than prestige
- You want Nature Portfolio branding without Nature-level selectivity
3.9 may not be enough if:
- Your field's top specialist journals are above 5.0 — publishing in Scientific Reports looks like a step down
- You're going up for promotion and your committee weighs journal prestige heavily
- The work has genuine significance that a more selective journal would recognize
Scientific Reports vs PLOS ONE
Both are soundness-only megajournals. The practical differences:
Scientific Reports | PLOS ONE | |
|---|---|---|
IF | 3.9 | 2.6 |
APC | ~$2,190 | ~$1,805 |
Branding | Nature Portfolio | Independent |
Volume | ~22,000/year | ~30,000/year |
Review time | 4-8 weeks | 4-12 weeks |
If the slightly higher IF and Nature branding matter to you, Scientific Reports is worth the price difference. If cost is the priority, PLOS ONE is cheaper.
Submission Tips
- Don't oversell novelty. Scientific Reports reviewers evaluate soundness, not significance. Claims that exceed what the data supports will cause problems
- Methods must be reproducible. Clear methods and available data/code are expected
- Formatting is flexible. Less rigid format than many specialist journals
- Review is relatively fast. Expect a first decision in 4-8 weeks
More Resources
Free scan in about 60 seconds.
Run a free readiness scan before you submit.
More Articles
Want the full picture on Scientific Reports?
Anthropic Privacy Partner - zero retention