This is an old revision of the document!
Scientific Reports
Publisher: Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) ISSN: 2045-2322 Launch Year: 2011 Open Access: Yes Impact Factor (2023): \~4.6 Article Processing Charges (APC): \~\$2,000 USD Frequency: Continuous publication
\
Scope and Aim
*Scientific Reports* is a multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that aims to rapidly disseminate research across all areas of the natural and clinical sciences. It accepts technically sound studies without requiring a demonstration of novelty or broad interest.
\
Strengths
1. Rapid and Transparent Publishing
* Continuous publication model and streamlined editorial process lead to fast dissemination. * Open-access format promotes visibility and accessibility.
2. Technical Soundness Over Impact
* Articles are accepted if scientifically and methodologically valid, regardless of perceived significance. * This supports reproducibility and mitigates publication bias against negative or confirmatory studies.
3. Multidisciplinary Breadth
* Covers a vast range of disciplines, enabling cross-field citations and broader academic reach.
4. Backed by Nature Portfolio
* Strong editorial infrastructure and indexing in major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science).
\
Weaknesses
1. Lower Perceived Prestige in Clinical Fields
* Despite the Nature branding, many clinical academics consider it a “second-tier” outlet. * Lacks the clinical rigor and editorial curation of specialist journals.
2. APC vs. Perceived Impact
* Article Processing Charges (\~\$2,000) are relatively high compared to perceived prestige and citation value. * Value-for-cost ratio may be questioned in resource-limited settings or for early-career researchers.
3. Variable Quality
* Acceptance based on technical soundness leads to a wide range in article impact and relevance. * Requires careful reader discernment, especially for clinical application.
4. Susceptibility to Citation Inflation
* Some authors may use it for strategic citation building, given its rapid publication and open-access reach.
\
Relevance to Neurosurgery and Clinical Medicine
* Limited: Most high-impact clinical neurosurgical studies prefer specialized journals (e.g., *JNS*, *Neurosurgery*, *Brain*, *Stroke*). * Useful for: Pilot studies, technical validations, interdisciplinary collaborations, negative findings, or computational neuroscience.
\
Summary Judgment
Scientific Reports occupies a useful niche in open-access scientific publishing, prioritizing technical rigor over novelty. While it lacks the prestige of flagship clinical journals, its broad reach and open-access model support transparency and early dissemination. However, its use in neurosurgery and clinical decision-making should be critical and selective.
“Scientifically sound but not necessarily practice-changing.”
—
If you’d like this in Dokuwiki format or want a comparison with journals like *BMJ Open* or *Frontiers in Neurology*, I can prepare that too.