No, Scientific Reports publishes original research (including meta-analyses) and does not accept review articles.
Researchers often ask whether the Nature Portfolio title accepts narrative or systematic reviews. The short answer: it doesn’t. The journal’s scope centers on sound primary studies across natural sciences, medicine, and engineering, with meta-analyses treated as original research.
Quick Takeaways Table
| Item | What It Means | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Article scope | Original research only (meta-analyses allowed) | Plan primary studies, not reviews |
| Allowed formats | Research Articles, Registered Reports, technical updates in limited cases | Pick the right route for your work |
| Not accepted | Review articles, clinical case reports | Save time by targeting a better venue |
Why The Journal Says No To Reviews
The title aims to evaluate methodological soundness and reproducibility rather than perceived novelty. Reviews rely on synthesis and commentary, which fall outside that mission. By keeping the pipeline for empirical work, editors streamline peer review and keep criteria clear. See the journal’s editorial criteria for the explicit line on scope.
What Counts As Original Research Here
A submission should report data, methods, and results that others can check or reuse. Meta-analyses meet that bar when they include a registered protocol, transparent selection, and reproducible code. Narrative overviews without new analysis do not.
Review Policy For Scientific Reports Journal
Many searchers phrase the question in different ways. The practical takeaway remains the same: the journal evaluates only studies that present new analyses or results. If your manuscript summarizes a field without fresh statistics or experiments, pick a review-focused venue.
Registered Reports: A Path For Hypothesis-Driven Work
Authors can pre-register their plan and pass stage-one peer review before collecting data. After completing the study as approved, acceptance follows barring deviations. This route guards against selective reporting and helps secure buy-in from editors and referees early. The publisher outlines this model in its Registered Reports overview.
How To Decide If Your Manuscript Fits
Ask three quick questions:
- Does the paper introduce new data or a re-analysis with a defined method?
- Can another team repeat the steps from your methods and code?
- Is the conclusion supported by a planned analysis rather than opinion?
If you answered “yes” across the board, you likely have a match. If not, pivot to a review journal.
Common Edge Cases
Short communications: still need data and a clear method.
Perspectives or opinions: not a fit.
Tutorials or protocols without results: better suited elsewhere unless paired with validation data.
Systematic reviews with meta-analysis: submit as original research and share code and data.
Choosing A Home For Review Papers
If your goal is a field overview, look toward titles that expressly welcome reviews. Nature Research has specialized review journals across disciplines. Subject-society journals also run invited and unsolicited reviews. Study their aims and formats first, then pitch or submit.
Timeline And Workload Expectations
Since the journal judges soundness, editors can send method-solid papers for review without chasing novelty. That can speed decisions in some cases, yet the process still hinges on reviewer availability. Plan for the usual cycles and keep your data and code in order to smooth the path.
Method And Transparency Checklist (For Fit)
- Pre-registration or a clear protocol
- Data availability plan with accession links
- Code in a public repository
- Detailed statistical plan
- Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Ethics approvals where needed
Fit Decision Matrix
| Manuscript Type | Fit For This Journal? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative review | No | Target a review journal |
| Systematic review without meta-analysis | No | Lacks new quantitative synthesis |
| Meta-analysis with full methods and data | Yes | Treated as original research |
Citing And Linking Policy Pages
When you prepare a submission, cite policy sources that clarify format and scope. Link the editorial criteria and the Registered Reports overview so coauthors align on expectations. Add these in your internal notes or lab wiki; you don’t need to cite them inside the paper.
Submission Tips That Help
Title and abstract: describe the question, data, and primary endpoint.
Methods first: write the protocol before polishing prose.
Figures: favor clear axes, units, and captions that stand alone.
Reporting checklists: match your design (CONSORT, PRISMA-style for meta-analysis, ARRIVE, STROBE).
Data and code: deposit early and link in the cover letter.
Ethics: include approvals and consent statements up front.
How Editors And Reviewers Assess Soundness
Editors look for a tight match between the question, method, and analysis plan. Reviewers scan sample size justification, randomization, blinding, preregistration, and data handling. Clarity on exclusions and outlier rules helps. When these parts align, the study reads as reproducible work.
When A Review May Still Add Value—Just Not Here
Reviews shape fields and guide newcomers. They suit journals built for synthesis. If you want reach within the Nature family, aim for a journal that explicitly brands itself as a review title. Elsewhere, society journals and annual series welcome timely surveys.
Meta-Analyses: Raise Your Bar
- Register the protocol and search string
- Define outcomes before screening
- Share screening decisions and a PRISMA-style flow
- Run sensitivity tests and bias checks
- Post the dataset and scripts
With these steps, the work stands as new analysis, not just commentary.
Ethics, Data, And Open Science Signals
This journal expects compliance with field standards. Share raw data where legal. Mask sensitive fields. Document preprocessing. Archive code with a version tag. Use persistent identifiers for datasets and software. These steps reduce back-and-forth during peer review.
Cover Letter Notes That Clarify Fit
Keep it brief. State that the work reports original data or a new quantitative synthesis. Mention preregistration, data availability, and code links. Flag any deviations from protocol and explain why. If the study is a meta-analysis, say so plainly and list registries and repositories.
Handling Revisions
Point reviewers to a tracked-changes file or a change log. Answer each point with a direct fix or a reasoned stance. Where you can’t run an extra test, add a limitation. Clarity and calm tone help move the file forward.
Where To Send A Review Article Instead
Pick titles that spotlight overview pieces. Options include field-specific review journals or sections within society titles. Scan recent issues to match length, format, and tone. Draft an outline and send a short pitch to the editor to check interest before a full write-up.
Practical Q&A
Q: My manuscript is a tutorial with no dataset. Fit?
A: No. Add a benchmark dataset and validation to reframe it as research.
Q: We wrote an evidence map without pooled statistics. Fit?
A: No. Convert to a meta-analysis with a registered protocol, or choose a review venue.
Q: Do brief updates or corrections appear?
A: Yes, when linked to published work and handled through editorial channels.
Bottom Line For Authors
This title is a home for original studies. If your article synthesizes literature without new analysis, route it to a review-friendly journal. If you have a meta-analysis with full transparency, you’re in scope here. For fees and licences, the publisher sets APCs at acceptance; check the current rate on the official pricing page on its official website.
Planning Your Timeline
Map three blocks: preparation, review, and production. In preparation, finish data collection and archiving. During review, keep your team ready for quick, targeted revisions. During production, answer figure queries fast and check proofs with care. Set internal deadlines for each block, build a buffer for holidays, and nominate one person to coordinate responses. That simple plan keeps everyone on the same page and cuts delay when referee notes land in your inbox.
Where This Policy Comes From
The clearest statement sits in the journal’s own editorial materials: it publishes original research, including meta-analyses, and does not take review articles or clinical case reports. That single line settles the scope question and should guide planning. Link that page in your group wiki so new students and postdocs see it early. A quick read of scope pages prevents misplaced submissions and keeps your pipeline tidy from the first draft.
Author Fees And Licences In Brief
Publishing here is open access under a Creative Commons licence. The publisher sets an article processing charge at acceptance. The rate can change, so always check the official pricing page or ask your librarian. Many institutions now run read-and-publish deals, which cover the charge in bulk. If your lab sits under such an agreement, include the cost center in your cover letter. If not, list a funder that approves open access fees and state the licence you plan to choose.
Data And Code Repositories
Pick stable homes with DOIs. Zenodo, Figshare, Dryad, OSF, or field-specific archives are common choices. For code, prefer a public Git host with a tagged release or a DOI minted through Zenodo. Add a CITATION file so others can cite your software. Post a README that documents folders, dependencies, and full commands to rerun analyses. Good archiving lowers friction during review and boosts reuse once your paper goes live.
Transfer And Alternatives Inside The Publisher
If editors decline on scope grounds, the publisher’s transfer service can route the file to a closer match without a heavy reformat. That path can save weeks, especially for review pieces that suit a review-branded title. When you pick a target, match aims, length, and tone to that journal’s recent issues. A short pre-pitch email to the editor can also help you confirm fit before you commit to a full resubmission.
Formatting Basics That Reduce Friction
Use a title that states the question. Write an abstract with background, objective, method, main finding, and links to data. Keep section order conventional: intro, methods, results, discussion, data and code availability, ethics. Give figures and tables legends that stand alone. Supply a reference manager with the submission.