Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Extremely slow process. Mediocre reviews, somewhat lacking expertise.
Motivation:
The editor offered a transfer after completing the review without any reason
Motivation:
The information in the email response about the rejection reasons is rather generic. It goes as follows:
Due to the number of submissions we receive, which is many more than we can publish, I regret that the Journal will not be able to use your manuscript.
This decision was based on the editors' evaluation of the merits of your manuscript compared with those of the many others we receive. This evaluation includes consideration of the paper's interest to our readers, the originality and design of the study and the quality of the manuscript.
Due to the number of submissions we receive, which is many more than we can publish, I regret that the Journal will not be able to use your manuscript.
This decision was based on the editors' evaluation of the merits of your manuscript compared with those of the many others we receive. This evaluation includes consideration of the paper's interest to our readers, the originality and design of the study and the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
One referee suggests accepting with very positive comments, while the other suggests rejecting because we did not cite one reference which is actually not relevant to our study.
Motivation:
The overall process was very good. I was surprised with only one, but a constructive review. However, for the paper I submitted, it could be difficult to find a second reviewer in a reasonable time.
Motivation:
"However, in view of published work on the development and characterization of tissue-mimicking materials for ultrasound, we feel that this study does not reach the high threshold in degree of advance that we look for in comparable manuscripts that we consider for external peer review."
They were really fast with the editorial process (2 days, with one day being on a weekend). Whether they are correct or not in terms of how big an advance is needed is of course debatable.
They were really fast with the editorial process (2 days, with one day being on a weekend). Whether they are correct or not in terms of how big an advance is needed is of course debatable.
Motivation:
Getting a desk reject is okay, and somewhat careless handling and explanation is expected at this stage. But it just took quite a bit longer than most other desk rejects I've received. The submission tracker was also shown as 'under review', which is very misleading.
Motivation:
As is normal, this paper was reviewed by the editorial board. In what would amount to minor revisions in another journal was a rejection (as per their policies). It took us 1 hour to do the relevant adjustments, and there were 2 technical comments that were plainly wrong. Their deal is transparent (in or out), but their bar also seems pretty high.
Motivation:
(+) It was a very smooth process. I got two valuable reviews that helped in improving the case-study paper. The Journal provided language correction.
(-) A bit long from acceptance to publishing. I had minor problems with the uploading platform and managing graphic content.
(-) A bit long from acceptance to publishing. I had minor problems with the uploading platform and managing graphic content.
Motivation:
Very positive experience
Motivation:
Fast handling, eternal review only takes 10 days
Motivation:
A top notch empirical contribution, but not enough theoretical contribution, apparently not enough for this journal. Reviews are helpful.
Motivation:
The review speed of this journal is very slow.
Motivation:
The process on the editor side took too much time. One review was constructive, while another gave mixed feelings.
Motivation:
The review process is not very quick, but the editorial office is very responsive.
Motivation:
I appreciate the coordinator and handling process in general. However I really disappoint with revieweres response. Out of four reviewers. There is only one reviewer who seem read through my article and provide rational and constructive feedback. The other two seem not read and suggest what indeed written in the article then they provide mainly linguistic problem. However, the most painful reviewer seem only repeatedly negative 'opinion' without any specific learning points.
Motivation:
The review process was quick
Motivation:
It seems we didn't explain well enough what is new in this paper...
Motivation:
Specific reason should have been provided by the Editor for rejection. Reviewers had mentioned points which could have been modified as required.
Motivation:
Desk rejection letter was summary, with no justification given and no constructive comment of any kind, such as other journal suggestions. Given the amount of money requested for the submission, this is disappointing. The only positive mention is that it was an very fast rejection.
Motivation:
The review process was essentially quite smooth; there was a substantial delay in between, but we managed to be informed: a more proactive communication would have been appreciated.
Motivation:
A so called "Quality Check stage" was ridiculously long, bizarre, and inept. Apparently, it was done at a very remote location because it took several days for the editorial support to respond to the amended versions. It took about two weeks before our manuscript has finally reached the editor. The same happened after reviews of the revision.
We were lucky with one of the reviewers, whose comments were knowledgeable and professional. We were not that lucky with the second reviewer, which rigorously focused on minor things like abbreviations, references formatting, grammatical terms etc. rather than on a subject matter of the manuscript. He/she was the reason for the second revision: few commas were missing, and few abbreviations were not consistent. We think handling editor should have been more decisive or certain before requesting the second insignificant revision. Overall, those were the factors that affected our scores here, at SciRev. It is not the first time we've been having quite a gloomy experience with the Scientific Reports: several years ago, our manuscript was in submission there for more than six months until we finally withdraw it due to delay. It turned out one reviewer approved it for publication, and they've been waiting for the second one to respond. Could have found another reviewer instead.
We were lucky with one of the reviewers, whose comments were knowledgeable and professional. We were not that lucky with the second reviewer, which rigorously focused on minor things like abbreviations, references formatting, grammatical terms etc. rather than on a subject matter of the manuscript. He/she was the reason for the second revision: few commas were missing, and few abbreviations were not consistent. We think handling editor should have been more decisive or certain before requesting the second insignificant revision. Overall, those were the factors that affected our scores here, at SciRev. It is not the first time we've been having quite a gloomy experience with the Scientific Reports: several years ago, our manuscript was in submission there for more than six months until we finally withdraw it due to delay. It turned out one reviewer approved it for publication, and they've been waiting for the second one to respond. Could have found another reviewer instead.
8.0 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The process is too slow to get a capricious, subjective desk rejection.
"We receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that, even if certified as being technically correct during peer review, there would not be a strong case for publication in Nature Climate Change. Among the considerations that arise at this stage are the immediacy of interest for the wider climate research community, the degree of advance provided, and the like."
"We receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that, even if certified as being technically correct during peer review, there would not be a strong case for publication in Nature Climate Change. Among the considerations that arise at this stage are the immediacy of interest for the wider climate research community, the degree of advance provided, and the like."
Motivation:
Slow desk-rejections becoming the norm.
Motivation:
Even though I have published two papers in the LUP in the years of 2019 and 2021, I am not satisfied with long initial screening periods after 2021. The editor rejected the paper after 4 months despite dozens of similar papers in the same journal. You need to click on a confirmation statement when you submit your paper. It states "The initial review process can last up to 4 months". Alarming. A waste of time. Besides, I realized that some papers written by the colleagues in the network of the editorial board can be accepten within significantly shorter times. I suppose that the LUP works on a basis of "rendez-vous". I will not prefer to submit my works to the LUP any more.
Motivation:
The reviewing process was very clearly explained and the comments provided me with insightful proposals to improve my manuscript.
Motivation:
Very superficial review saying our software program described in the article was useless. Clearly the reviewers and the editor had no idea about the topic analyzed.
Motivation:
The majority of authors that published in this journal are coming from Australia, with minority from all other countries together.
After the submission of the manuscript, the Editorial Office needed even 2 weeks to complete pre-review checks.
After the long review process by an editor (without sending to external reviewers), the article was rejected with compliments and one vague reason difficult to understand. The editor wished to remain anonymous.
I do not recommend submitting to this journal despite strangely high IF as the quality of review is very bad.
After the submission of the manuscript, the Editorial Office needed even 2 weeks to complete pre-review checks.
After the long review process by an editor (without sending to external reviewers), the article was rejected with compliments and one vague reason difficult to understand. The editor wished to remain anonymous.
I do not recommend submitting to this journal despite strangely high IF as the quality of review is very bad.
18.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This is a good journal for authors to submit on.