Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
13.7 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editors are reactive and precise in their answers. The review process took exactly the average 106 days mentioned on the journal website's metrics. The comments were very thorough and helped improve the paper.
15.4 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
5.3 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: We were very satisfied with the entire submission process as well as with our editor and reviewers. All of them were competent in our field. Their suggestions were very helpful and significantly improved the quality of our paper. The entire process was also quick and without any delays.
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
27.6 weeks
31.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The journal now uses the Elsevier "Track Submission System" which is quite nice. According to the statuses shown, two potential reviewers declined to referee, while the third one accepted and carried out their duty in roughly three months. The report was spot on, and it felt that they went through the manuscript with care.

My only complaint is that it appears that the first reviewer was invited two months after the initial submission, and my revised version a month after being sent in. Both times, things started to move when I sent an email inquiring whether the process was moving along. On the one hand, the help desk was fast in reaching the handling editor and having things moving, but on the other hand a quicker handling editor would have meant a total handling time two to three months less.
32.6 weeks
81.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: We had a tough reviewer, but in the end managed to convince them. The core of the argument is still the same; I'm not sure the article is two years better now, but we got there.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 51.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: After waiting for more than 50 days for the first initial technical check we decided finally to withdraw our manuscript from Scientific Reports.
n/a
n/a
351 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We submitted the manuscript in February 2023.
At February 21, 2023, we received a confirmation that the manuscript was successfully submitted.
At May 9, 2023, we informed about the status of the article, and we received a prompt answer that the manuscript was under peer review.
At September 4, 2023, we informed again and received a prompt answer. They aswered that teh review process typically takes 12 to 16 weeks, but that there are occasions during which it takes a little bit longer.
At February 7, 2024, we informed again (this time we also emailed the Editor; not only the editorial assistant). The Editor answered promptly that the article was rejected because they could not find reviewers.
We did not receive any feedback about the contents our article.
However, the Taylor & Francis editorial team was friendly enough to do specific suggestions to send our paper to four low-impact commercial journals of Taylor & Francis.
52.7 weeks
53.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My article was a mechanistic study with crystal structure and to support the claim there was biochemical analysis also. They rejected by saying "it lacks the kind of deep mechanistic insight into fundamental molecular or biochemical processes". In contrast to their view, the paper is all about atomic level mechanistic analysis with crystal structure and kinetic analysis. I really dont have any issue with the rejection as it do not fit the reputation or whatever. But I really felt cheated with the reason they gave. It clearly shows that they have not read the article at all.
3.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Our submission was invited by the editor-in-chief, who later rejected it when one of the two reviewers did not support publication.

Be wary of the journal’s unusual requirements, such as citing only references <5 years old. If your submission is rejected, it will require work to reformat it for publication elsewhere.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor noted that the manuscript was more geared toward an experimental technique rather than coral reefs themselves and, therefore, would be more suitable elsewhere.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript was rejected but with possibility to transfer to sister journal with more focused readership.
95.0 weeks
95.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Rejected
Motivation: The longest review process in my career. I submitted my manuscript in spring of 2022. After 44 days I received an email from the editor-in-chief that he read my manuscript and is sending my paper out for review. 159 days later, I send an email asking if there was any progress with the reviews of my paper. I did not receive an answer. I approached the journal once again in 2023, again without a reaction. Finally, I approached the journal in January 2024 – 20 months after the initial submission. After first receiving a generic reply about the paper being under review, two weeks later, I received a personalized apology from the journal explaining that the delay has been caused by waiting for the second review and that they had to eventually change the reviewer. The deadline for the second review being next month. Finally, after almost 22 months under review, I received two detailed reviews together with a reject decision from the editor. No mentioning of the time it took them to review the paper. To put the long story short – if you would like to have your paper reviewed in a reasonable amount of time, try another journal.
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
Motivation: the referee did not clearly understand the manuscript, and the comments are easily addressed, but the editor rejected the manuscript directly...
28.3 weeks
33.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The general review process is really good, but the time to the first decision is a bit slow. For the rest, the paper was handled properly.
7.0 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: It seemed as if one of the reviewers had hardly read the manuscript. The other reviewer made appropriate osbervations about the scope of the article.
28.7 weeks
36.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Accepted
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Immediately accepted after 3.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
3
Rejected
Motivation: In principle the journal handled our submission well, although there were no status updates between submission and decision.
The quality of the reviews, however, was not what I expected from this journal. The comments were not helpful to revise the manuscript. One of the reviewers even suggested to include references to a number of completely unrelated publications, a practice that I thought was long gone.
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
17.6 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The communication with the journal was good. The editorial assistent took care that the manuscript, references, figures and so on were made perfect in the administrative phase. There was only one reviewer, but the critical and constructive comments were of good quality and helped to improve the manuscript. There was a delay before we resubmitted the article, but this was due to personal circumstances of the first author.
7.0 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The Journal is really very high quality. The reviewers checked the entire article and made it high-quality. Yes, it took a little time, but the article is now readable. All comments were made on the merits.
31.9 weeks
68.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The Editor and Reviewers where very well informed about the subject and handled the paper competently and with high deontological standards.
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
36 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
132.1 weeks
141.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: It took the journal an unacceptably long period of time to respond to the submitted manuscript, in spite of our reminder emails. We addressed all the review comments and resubmitted, upon which the manuscript was rejected on the basis of a previously unaddressed issue. None of our attempts to engage in dialouge with the Editorial team have succeeded.
1.7 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The journal processes are very efficient. They inform you by email or they portal what is happening with the manuscript at every stage.
5.3 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
0
Rejected
Motivation: The editor acted as a postman, delivering messages between the reviewers and authors; did not bother to review the manuscript and provide feedback, or make a decision when was needed. After the first review round it was very obvious that two reviewers said accept and one reject. Instead of making a decision then, the editor just forwarded the comments to the authors, without providing any input of theirs. There was not really anything to address; the one that was suggesting reject was not providing feedforward, just stating why the paper needs to be declined, the reasons having to do with things that cannot be changed (such as not enough demographic data collected). In cases such as this it is the job of the editor to make a decision.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2.4 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: Initially, the review process was very speedy, but then there were changes in the contact persons in the correspondence and suddenly it took a relatively long time before we received feedback on the revision of our review. This was very positive from one reviewer, but the paper was then rejected with a few arguments from the assistant editor. We could not understand why we were rejected in the 2nd round. The process was not transparent. When we asked for clarification and a re-examination, we were put off for a very long time (apparently a reviewer and the assistant editor could not be reached), we received another rejection at the end of Dec. 2023, which was not entirely comprehensible to us with regard to the arguments.
0.4 weeks
0.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Good service 👍
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: O nosso artigo retornou duas vezes para correções relacionadas ao conteúdo e erros nossos na formatação. Da data de envio, submissão, aceite e retornos com correções, levou umas 4 semanas. Recomendo a publicação de vocês neste periódico.

Our article was returned twice for corrections related to the content and our formatting errors. From the date of sending, submission, acceptance and returns with corrections, it took about 4 weeks. I recommend your publication in this journal.

Nuestro artículo fue devuelto dos veces por correcciones relacionadas con el contenido y nuestros errores de formato. Desde la fecha de envío, envío, aceptación y devolución con correcciones, pasaron unas 4 semanas. Recomiendo su publicación en esta revista.
53.9 weeks
53.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
0
Accepted
Motivation: I would like to make a short digression before telling my history. I decided to submit a paper to this journal because I was invited to review a manuscript to that journal. It was a good paper, the editor gave me 45 days to submit my report (that was a fair time) and I recommend acceptance. From the submission to online publication, the entire process took around four months.

My experience can be summarised as follows: The review process was a real nightmare and felt myself disrespected, as an author, by the way things took during the revision process.

I submitted my paper on November 01, 2022. It remained stopped for months, despite several messages I sent to the journal asking for information. I wrote to the system's manager (SM) and also to the editor. The SM usually took long time to reply to me and I always received vague answers. The editor has never answered to me, although the system (any message I wrote was throughout the editorial system) allowed me to choose the editor as the recipient of my message.

Only in August 2022 the paper was sent to review, after 10 months since the submission! After four months (December 2023) I wrote to the editor, asking again for news from my paper and saying that I had submitted my paper more than one year before. On the same day I received a final decision on the manuscript (acceptance), that leads me to wonder the following: if I had not written to the editor, my paper would still continue without any decision. This is a disrespectful treatment to authors and I do not plan to submit any paper to the journal at all.
26.7 weeks
44.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: The paper went through two rounds of reviewers, with all 7 (in total) reviewers satisfied, apart from a single exception. This reviewer kept making increasingly unreasonable requests and, even when those were satisfied, they were still not satisfied. The editor then chose to follow this single reviewer's decision and reject the paper, ignoring the opinion of all other reviewers. This process took 13 months in total. It would have been better if the editor had rejected the paper after the first round of reviews.