Scientific Reports Pre-Submission Checklist: Is Your Paper Ready?
Before you submit to Scientific Reports, use this checklist to verify you meet the soundness bar, data requirements, and reporting standards that editors check first.
Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.
Next step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.
Decision cue: Scientific Reports has a 57% acceptance rate, which makes it one of the more accessible Nature Portfolio journals. But accessible does not mean casual. The review process takes a median of 120 days, which means a preventable rejection wastes four months. Getting the submission right the first time matters more here than at faster journals because the time cost of a rejection cycle is so high.
Check your Scientific Reports readiness in 60 seconds with the free scan, or work through this checklist manually.
The 10-point Scientific Reports pre-submission checklist
Scientific soundness
1. Is the study scientifically valid regardless of perceived impact?
Scientific Reports reviews for soundness, not significance. Your paper does not need to be a major advance. It needs to be methodologically sound, transparently reported, and contribute real data to the scientific record. Negative results, replication studies, and incremental advances are all welcome if the execution is rigorous.
The question is not "is this exciting?" It is "if another researcher followed these methods, would they trust the results?"
2. Are the methods reproducible without contacting the authors?
Scientific Reports requires detailed methods. Every statistical test named and justified. Software versions specified. Protocols described or cited with enough detail for replication. Sample sizes explained. Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated.
The Nature Portfolio reporting summary is required and must be completed carefully, not generically.
3. Do the conclusions match the study design?
A cross-sectional study that uses causal language. A pilot with 15 participants presented as definitive evidence. An observational analysis that claims to "demonstrate" rather than "suggest." These are the errors that reviewers catch and that add weeks to the revision cycle.
Data and code
4. Is data available in a public repository?
Scientific Reports follows the Nature Portfolio data availability policy. Data underlying the findings must be available, either in a public repository (with DOI or accession number), as supplementary material, or through a clearly specified access mechanism.
"Data available on request from the corresponding author" is acceptable only with justification. Preferred repositories: Figshare, Dryad, Zenodo, or a field-specific archive.
5. Is custom code deposited?
If the paper relies on custom code for analysis or simulation, that code must be accessible. A GitHub repository with a Zenodo DOI is the standard approach. "Code available upon request" without a repository link is increasingly insufficient.
Reporting standards
6. Is the Nature Portfolio reporting summary complete?
This is required for all Scientific Reports submissions and is more detailed than most reporting checklists. It covers study design, statistical methods, data availability, materials, and software. Complete it carefully with specific page and section references.
7. Is the study-specific checklist complete (if applicable)?
CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational, PRISMA for systematic reviews, ARRIVE for animal studies. The checklist is in addition to the reporting summary, not a replacement for it.
Ethics and compliance
8. Are ethics approvals documented in the methods?
IRB approval for human subjects (institution name and approval number in methods). Animal care committee approval for animal studies. Informed consent documentation. Scientific Reports will not send a manuscript for review if ethics documentation is incomplete.
9. Is the conflict of interest declaration complete for all authors?
All authors must declare conflicts. The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that all co-authors have provided accurate declarations.
Manuscript preparation
10. Is the manuscript formatted correctly?
Scientific Reports accepts manuscripts as a single Word or LaTeX file with figures embedded or as separate high-resolution files. The abstract should be no more than 200 words (shorter than many journals). The manuscript should be structured with Introduction, Results, Discussion, and Methods sections (note: Methods goes last at Scientific Reports, not after Introduction).
Check that:
- the abstract is under 200 words
- the Methods section is at the end of the paper (not after Introduction)
- figures are high resolution (minimum 300 DPI)
- references follow the Nature Portfolio style (numbered, in order of appearance)
The faster alternative
This checklist covers 10 items. The Manusights free readiness scan checks your manuscript against Scientific Reports' editorial standards automatically. Upload your paper, select Scientific Reports, and get a readiness score with the top issues in about 60 seconds.
If the scan flags methodology, citation, or journal-fit issues, the $29 AI Diagnostic delivers a full report with 15+ verified citations from 500M+ live papers, figure-level feedback, and a prioritized revision checklist.
Why the 120-day timeline makes preparation more important
Scientific Reports takes roughly 4 months to first decision. Compare that to PLOS ONE (35 to 45 days) or Nature Communications (~30 days). A desk rejection at Scientific Reports wastes 2 to 4 weeks, but a rejection after review wastes 4+ months. This makes getting the submission right the first time especially important.
About 30 to 40% of submissions are desk rejected, typically within 1 to 2 weeks. Common desk rejection triggers: clinical research without ethical approval, missing data availability, obviously inflated significance claims, or visible statistical errors. The soundness-only review model means the editorial screen focuses on whether the methodology is trustworthy, not on whether the result is exciting.
Reviewers are instructed to assess technical soundness, methodological rigor, data quality, and reproducibility. They are NOT asked to evaluate novelty or potential impact. This means the review itself is focused on whether the science is valid, which makes it less adversarial than at selective journals but no less demanding on methods quality.
For more on the review process, see Scientific Reports Under Review: Status Meanings and Scientific Reports Review Time.
How Scientific Reports compares for pre-submission preparation
Feature | Scientific Reports | BMC journals | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Desk rejection | 30 to 40% | 15 to 20% | ~50% | ~20% |
Acceptance rate | ~57% | ~31% | ~15% | Varies |
First decision | ~120 days | 35 to 45 days | ~30 days | ~60 days |
Review model | Soundness only | Soundness only | Significance | Soundness |
Abstract limit | 200 words | 300 words | No strict limit | Varies |
Methods placement | End of paper | Standard | Standard | Standard |
Key editorial test | Is the methodology trustworthy? | Is the methodology sound? | Does this advance the field? | Is this scientifically valid? |
Related Scientific Reports guides
Sources
On this page
Reference library
Use the core publishing datasets alongside this guide
This article answers one part of the publishing decision. The reference library covers the recurring questions that usually come next: how selective journals are, how long review takes, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
Dataset / reference guide
Peer Review Timelines by Journal
Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.
Dataset / benchmark
Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates
A field-organized acceptance-rate guide that works as a neutral benchmark when authors are deciding how selective to target.
Reference table
Journal Submission Specs
A high-utility submission table covering word limits, figure caps, reference limits, and formatting expectations.
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.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.