Latest review
First review round: 8.0 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good).
Outcome: Accepted.
Motivation:
Nature Communications has two clear advantages. First, it usually draws a broad set of reviewers, so if the paper gets a chance for revision, the final version often becomes more appealing to a wider audience. Second, the peer review reports are published online, which adds a valuable level of transparency. If a reviewer was clearly unconstructive, that is visible to readers. It also helps show that some of the paper’s limitations or downsides may have been raised during peer review.
That said, there are also significant disadvantages. The process is often too slow, and editorial handling can be frustratingly delayed. Even after acceptance, publication may take another two months because of bureaucracy, despite the very high fee of more than €6,000. If the editorial service were faster and more efficient, as it often is at ACS journals, the cost might feel more justified.
Another issue is that editors often do not seem to make strong independent decisions unless the reviewers are broadly satisfied. This appears to be a general feature of parts of the Nature portfolio, especially where editors are not active researchers. When a reviewer raises an objection that is obviously exaggerated, unjustified, or irrelevant, the editor should step in and say so rather than letting the process be driven entirely by reviewers.
A further bad practice is that in later rounds of review, some reviewers say their original concerns have been addressed, but then introduce entirely new comments and correction requests unrelated to the initial review. This can create an endless review loop. Editors should be more willing to stop this practice when the new demands are not justified.
