Scientific Reports 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and How Long to Wait
If your Scientific Reports submission shows Under Review, here is what each status means, why the journal's timeline is longer than most, and when to contact the editorial office.
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' review process is slower than most authors expect. The median time from submission to first decision is roughly 120 days, significantly longer than PLOS ONE or Nature Communications. If your paper shows "Under Review," be prepared for a wait. The journal reviews for scientific soundness, not novelty, which means the review itself is usually constructive rather than adversarial.
Quick answer
Scientific Reports is a high-volume, open-access journal in the Nature portfolio that reviews for scientific soundness, not significance. The acceptance rate is approximately 57%. Despite the relatively accessible editorial standard, the process is slow: 120 days median to first decision. This is mainly due to the difficulty of finding and securing reviewers for the large volume of submissions the journal receives.
If your paper is Under Review, it has already passed the editorial screen. The main variable now is how long the reviewers take to return reports.
Scientific Reports' review pipeline
Status | What is happening | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
Received | Administrative processing | 1 to 3 days |
Editor Assigned | Handling editor reads manuscript, assesses scope | 3 to 10 days |
Reviewer Invited | Editor searching for reviewers | 1 to 4 weeks |
Under Review | Reviewers actively evaluating | 4 to 10 weeks |
Reviews Complete | All reports received | 1 to 5 days |
Decision Pending | Editor preparing recommendation | 3 to 10 days |
Decision Made | Check email | Same day |
The longest stages are reviewer invitation and active review. Scientific Reports receives a very large volume of submissions, and the reviewer pool is stretched.
Why Scientific Reports is slower than PLOS ONE
Authors often compare Scientific Reports to PLOS ONE because both use a soundness-based review model. But Scientific Reports is significantly slower:
Feature | Scientific Reports | PLOS ONE |
|---|---|---|
Median first decision | ~120 days | 35 to 45 days |
Acceptance rate | ~57% | ~31% |
Publisher | Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | PLOS |
APC | $2,190 | $1,895 |
The speed difference is mainly about infrastructure and reviewer management. PLOS ONE's Academic Editor model distributes the reviewer-finding burden across thousands of editors. Scientific Reports uses a smaller editorial team that handles more manuscripts per editor, which creates bottlenecks at the reviewer invitation stage.
What each status means
Editor Assigned (days 1 to 10)
A handling editor has been assigned and is reading the manuscript. The editor checks for scope fit and basic soundness. Desk rejections at Scientific Reports are less common (~20%) than at selective journals, but they do happen for:
- papers outside the natural sciences scope
- manuscripts with obvious methodological problems visible in the abstract
- papers that are better suited to a specialized journal
Reviewer Invited (days 10 to 40)
This is often the longest stage. The editor is searching for reviewers, and many invitations are declined before someone accepts. Scientific Reports typically needs 2 reviewers, and securing both can take 2 to 4 weeks.
If the status stays at "Reviewer Invited" for an extended period, it means the editor is still looking. This is not a reflection on your paper's quality. It is a volume problem.
Under Review (days 30 to 90)
Reviewers have accepted and are evaluating the manuscript. Scientific Reports asks reviewers to return reports within 2 to 3 weeks, but many take longer. The review is focused on:
- scientific soundness and methodological rigor
- whether the methods are described in enough detail for reproduction
- whether the conclusions are supported by the data
- quality and clarity of data presentation
- appropriate use of statistics
Reviewers are NOT asked to evaluate novelty, significance, or impact. This makes the review more focused on technical quality, which is generally good for authors.
Decision Pending (after reviews)
The editor has all reviewer reports and is preparing the final decision. This can take 3 to 10 days depending on how complex the reviews are and whether the editor needs to consult additional expertise.
What each decision means
Accept
Possible on first round, more common here than at selective journals because the review standard is soundness. If both reviewers find the methods and conclusions acceptable, acceptance without revision is possible.
Minor Revision
Small changes needed: clarifications, additional references, minor formatting issues. Respond within 2 to 4 weeks. The editor usually handles the revision without returning to reviewers.
Major Revision
Substantive concerns about methodology, data analysis, or conclusions. Respond within 30 to 60 days. The revised paper returns to the original reviewers, which adds another round of review time.
Reject
Less common (~43% rejection rate) than at selective journals, but happens when the methods are fundamentally flawed, the conclusions are not supported, or the paper falls outside scope. The reviewer reports are included in the decision letter and are often constructive.
When to follow up
Situation | Action |
|---|---|
Editor Assigned for 10+ days | Normal. Wait. |
Reviewer Invited for 30+ days | Common at this journal. Wait a bit longer. |
Reviewer Invited for 45+ days | Polite inquiry is reasonable. |
Under Review for 60 days | Normal for Scientific Reports. |
Under Review for 90+ days | Polite inquiry is reasonable. |
No status change for 45+ days | Contact the editorial office. |
Total time exceeds 150 days | Follow up. Something may be stuck. |
Scientific Reports' editorial office can be contacted through the manuscript tracking system. Be polite and specific about which stage appears stuck.
What to do while waiting
- do not submit the same paper elsewhere
- the 120-day median means some papers take 150+ days; plan accordingly
- use the time to prepare supplementary analyses or data that reviewers might request
- if the paper is needed for a grant deadline or career milestone, factor in the slower timeline
- consider whether PLOS ONE would have been faster (35 to 45 days) if the timeline matters
Check whether your paper is ready to submit with a free readiness scan. It takes about 60 seconds.
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.