Review this journal

Scientific Reports

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 61 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases Click to compare
Duration first review round 2.1 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 3.7 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection 24 days compare →
Characteristics of peer review process Click to compare
Average number of review reports 2.1 compare →
Average number of review rounds 2.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.3 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 2.9 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.7 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review Show all reviews

First review round: 22.1 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The overall experiences with this journal are extremely negative.with over 10 months from start to finish. Others have noted the quality check is infuriating, We got the manuscript bounced back many times which is odd considering we used the transfer service. In the end they were apologizing for not catching the things which required amending to comply with their formatting. The quality check guidelines were also not applied consistently between our first and re submission with different requests given for certain formatting, The journal "lost" their handling editor at least four times. I tried to check but the number of times exceeds the events log on their website! Looking back it was farcical and would almost be humorous if we weren't actually trying to publish research. The editor reports are a mixed bag with some useful comments from some reviewers but it is clear some reviewers are not actually an expert in the given field and are not able to critique technically. This results in them providing useful comments to figure legends etc, but missing the point in some instances and providing editorial comments as part of a technical comment. The handling editor (editors? who knows how many we had in the end) don't appear to differentiate when they receive a block of text with comments the majority of which are focused on formatting). Overall, very negative view of the journal. A nice idea but extremely poorly executed.

Show all »

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Scientific Reports has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee?
n/a
Kind of complaint procedure
n/a
Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a
Disciplines: General

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.