Scientific Reports Indexing Paused in MEDLINE and PubMed While NLM Reviews the Journal

The US National Library of Medicine (NLM) has stopped indexing new articles from Scientific Reports in MEDLINE while it reviews the journal's place in the database, Retraction Watch reported on October 30. New papers from the Springer Nature journal are not appearing in PubMed while the review runs.

What the journal told authors

The journal's chief editor, Rafal Marszalek, explained the pause in an email dated October 20 that Retraction Watch quoted. "Following its significant growth in recent years, Scientific Reports is currently being reviewed by the US National Library of Medicine (NLM)," he wrote. During that period, he added in the same message quoted by Retraction Watch, indexing in MEDLINE and archiving in PubMed Central "are paused, and will not appear in PubMed."

Marszalek did not say why NLM is reviewing the journal. Retraction Watch said NLM did not immediately answer its questions about the reasons, the expected length of the review, or whether the list of journals under reevaluation is public. Neither the journal's NLM catalog entry nor its PubMed Central listing shows that a review is under way.

How big the journal is

Scientific Reports is the largest journal in PubMed by number of articles indexed. According to Retraction Watch, the most recent of its articles in PubMed were published on September 15, and PubMed has indexed 28,593 of its 2026 articles, not counting errata and retraction notices. The journal's own website lists 41,122 articles published this year, Retraction Watch said. Its article processing charge is $2850, according to Retraction Watch.

The gap came to light through Tom Lahey, an independent researcher who maintains tools built on PubMed data. He noticed lower-than-usual counts for the journal two months in a row, asked NLM about it, and was referred to the publisher.

What the publisher says

Springer Nature answered through Richard White, who is vice president of publishing for the Scientific Reports Portfolio. His statement to Retraction Watch: "We remain committed to maintaining high standards of quality and are actively working with the NLM to provide any updated information they need." Marszalek's October 20 message had struck a similar note: "We are in contact with NLM, and we expect that indexing, including of content published during the current period, will resume following the review."

What NLM's policy says

NLM spells out its triggers on its MEDLINE policies page. A journal gets reevaluated when a publisher leaves problems with articles unfixed or they look systemic, when there are verifiable concerns about the quality of its science or editing, or when the journal itself changes in a big way. One thing NLM says it watches is publishing practice, "such as annual publication volume or primary article content types."

The steps are laid out too. Staff first tell the journal what worries them, then "place a hold on processing any additional content until the review is complete." The policy puts the usual length at "around 7 to 10 months." A journal that passes stays in, and NLM indexes its backlog, "including all articles published during the holding period." One that fails is dropped, and NLM calls that call final.

What it means for authors

For researchers who publish in Scientific Reports now, the practical effect is a wait. Under NLM's stated policy, their papers would be indexed after the review if the journal passes. The Publishing Times will report NLM's decision when it is public.

Photo: The National Library of Medicine on the NIH campus. Photo by Chris Spielmann for the National Cancer Institute, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.