Well, i have served as a reviewer there twice. In the invitation email, they say: Please note that a manuscript novelity is not a criteria of evaluation.

So, they do not care about novelity of the papers they publish; the same case of many open access journals these days like Medicine Journal. They say all they want from a manuscript is to be technically sound. This has advantages (like enabling researchers to publish their work) and disadvantages (like inflating the literature with non-novel articles) and the reasons of doing that may include increasing their financial return.

I think the level of papers published in Scientific reports does not differ from many other conventional journals and that it has received over-rated attention because it is published by Nature Group.

Well, i have served as a reviewer there twice. In the invitation email, they say: Please note that a manuscript novelity is not a criteria of evaluation.

So, they do not care about novelity of the papers they publish; the same case of many open access journals these days like Medicine Journal. They say all they want from a manuscript is to be technically sound. This has advantages (like enabling researchers to publish their work) and disadvantages (like inflating the literature with non-novel articles) and the reasons of doing that may include increasing their financial return.

I think the level of papers published in Scientific reports does not differ from many other conventional journals and that it has received over-rated attention because it is published by Nature Group.