Latest review
First review round: 29.9 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad).
Outcome: Accepted.
Motivation:
Our experience submitting to Scientific Reports was deeply disappointing on multiple fronts, and I would caution other researchers before choosing this journal.
First, we submitted specifically to be included in a Special Collection, which was the primary reason we chose Scientific Reports over other Journals. At no point during the editorial process were we informed that the Special Collection had changed or been discontinued. We only learned of this after the article had been paid for and published. We had also chosen to endure a particularly terrible editorial process because of this Special Collection.
Second, the timeline was unacceptable by any standard. Nearly a year passed from submission to acceptance. Our first revision alone took close to seven months (despite only 2 reviewers) and dozens of follow-up communications from our team to the Editorial office. Responses were slow and required persistent effort just to get basic status updates.
Third, and most concerning, we received conflicting information from the editorial team throughout those status update communications — information that appeared to misrepresent our manuscript's status. At best, the information we received was misleading and not transparent. They also refused to call or meet virtually to provide any explanation.
The quality of the peer review itself may be fine, but the editorial management surrounding it was not. Researchers should be aware of these issues before committing their work here.
