Open main menu

Scientific Reports is an online open access, scientific mega journal published by Nature Research, covering all areas of the natural sciences. The journal aims to assess solely the scientific validity of a submitted paper, rather than its perceived importance, significance or impact.[1]

Scientific Reports  
DisciplineNatural sciences
Edited byRichard White
Publication details
Publication history
LicenseCreative Commons Attribution
Standard abbreviations
Sci. Rep.

On 23 August 2016, a blog post on the Scholarly Kitchen mentioned that the journal was likely to become the largest one in the world, overtaking PLOS ONE.[2] This indeed occurred in September 2016[3] and was later confirmed in the first quarter of 2017.[4]


Abstracting and indexingEdit

The journal is abstracted and indexed in the Chemical Abstracts Service,[5] the Science Citation Index Expanded, and selectively Index Medicus/MEDLINE/PubMed.[6] According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2017 impact factor of 4.122.[7]

Peer reviewEdit

Scientific Reports has been described as a mega journal, conceptually similar to PLOS ONE, based on article processing charges.[8] Its peer review model uses a criteria that states for acceptance published articles "must be scientifically valid and technically sound in methodology and analysis" and reviewers have to ensure articles "are not assessed based on their perceived importance, significance or impact".[9] Its editorial board is extremely large, with several thousand listed members.[10] In 2015, editor Mark Maslin resigned when the journal introduced a trial of a fast-track peer-review service for biology manuscripts in exchange for an additional fee.[11][12]

2018 Homeopathy paperEdit

On September 10th. 2018, they published an allegedly peer-reviewed study that claimed to show that a homeopathic ultra-dilution of poison oak can reduce pain in rats. Soon after, scientists reviewing the study noted problems with the research, including several suspicious duplicated data figures claimed to be from different experiments, inconsistent results reported for various dilutions, and that the results hinged on subjective, non-blinded data from an experiment involving just eight rats.

The editors have since added a warning that the study has received "criticisms that are being considered by the editors".

See alsoEdit


  1. ^ "Criteria for publication". Scientific Reports. Nature Publishing Group.
  2. ^ Davis, Phil (2016-08-23). "Scientific Reports On Track To Become Largest Journal In The World". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2016-08-24.
  3. ^ "Mega-journals: the future, a stepping stone to it or a leap into the abyss?". Times Higher Education. 2016-10-13. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  4. ^ "Scientific Reports Overtakes PLOS ONE As Largest Megajournal". The Scholarly Kitchen. 2017-04-06. Retrieved 2017-04-06.
  5. ^ "CAS Source Index". Chemical Abstracts Service. American Chemical Society. Retrieved 2018-08-24.
  6. ^ "Scientific Reports". NLM Catalog. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved 2018-08-24.
  7. ^ "Scientific Reports". 2017 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science OR Social Sciences ed.). Clarivate Analytics. 2018.
  8. ^ "Nature's open-access offering may sound death knell for subs model". The Times Higher Education. 13 January 2011. Retrieved 23 January 2011.
  9. ^ "Guide to referees | Scientific Reports". Retrieved 2018-11-18.
  10. ^ "Editorial Advisory Panel and Editorial Board". Scientific Reports. Nature Publishing Group.
  11. ^ Bohannon, John (27 March 2015). "Editor quits journal over pay-for-expedited peer-review offer". Science Insider. Science/AAAS. Retrieved 23 July 2015.
  12. ^ Cressey, Daniel (27 March 2015). "Concern raised over payment for fast-track peer review". NPG. Retrieved 1 June 2018.

External linksEdit