Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
9.9 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editor and reviewers responded in a timely, constructive and efficient manner. The process was straightforward. The reviews were beneficial in strengthening the paper for publication.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. Such decisions are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers do not meet the criteria for publication in Nature Communications. These editorial judgements are based on such considerations as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness.

In this case, while we do not question the validity of your interesting work ..., I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings are sufficiently developed to justify publication in Nature Communications.

Although we cannot offer to publish your manuscript, I suggest that you consider transferring your manuscript to our sister journal, <i>Communications Biology</i>, a selective open-access Nature Research title led by an in-house editorial team that publishes research bringing new insight into a focused area of biology ."
13.0 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Out of the 3 reviews I received, 2 were of specially high quality; both of the suggested revisions but the comments were reasonable and they made me realise where I didn't include enogh details of my analysis in the first version. The third review was quite problematic, though, as this person was evidently biased against the framework and repeatedly misquited both my research and that of others.
I highly appreciated the constructive way of handling from the editor, who also evidently took enougth time to read through the paper and make suggestions both during the revision process and during editing.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: Though the one reviewer assigned was overall helpful and professional, I cannot say the same about the handling editor. My paper was rejected based on a single review report (which was not all that negative to motivate rejection). I was left with the impression that my paper was rejected because they did not want to spend time finding additional referees.
Immediately accepted after 0.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: The content which I have presented in my manuscript seems to be novel and productive information. Hence, Nature biotechnology journal is exactly fitted for review.
4.1 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
6.1 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Editorial decisions were fast and seemed fair, reviews were of very good quality and the editor also gave useful comments on the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After sending a pre-submission early on (which is required for perspective papers in the journal), we were invited to submit the full manuscript. We got a desk rejection, so we found the pre-submission step useless. The decision was very fast, so no time was wasted.
1.3 weeks
1.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer just provided two sentences saying that our article would have been more appropriate for some other journal.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Really fast process and high-quality reviews. They do not strongly argue rejection, but this journal receives many manuscripts, and the editorial decision is reasonable. I recommend to submit here and I will do it again in the future.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.0 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: We originally submitted to Nature Ecology and Evolution and it was desk-rejected after ~10 days with the option to transfer to Nature Communications. The original turn around time (5 weeks) was very reasonable. The reviewers requested substantial edits and the editor gave us 3-6 months to resubmit. This was also at the beginning of COVID19 so we took almost the whole time to complete the revision. Afterward, the second decision time (~7 weeks) was very reasonable considering the current state of the world. The editor gave us provisional acceptance pending addressing the reviewer's minor requests and formatting for the journal. Overall, a great experience, but I still don't think it's worth the inordinately high charges.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We made an appeal for review. Appeal got accepted and they sent the manuscript for review and rejected within a week with two reviewers reports.
We do not feel the manuscript was thoroughly assessed, rejection was due to it not being in the top 10%. It is not clear what top 10% means if work is rejected even even though it does not have a strong precedent and had potentially very broad applications. The recommendation was to transfer to Chem E J. It appears to us that the manuscript only received a cursory look (no details on why it is not in the top 10%). A response from us to the editor's decision was not followed through in a timely manner, requiring a reminder. At the time of the reminder, we decided to withdraw the manuscript and submit to another venue that has been much fairer in its handling of our manuscripts, and to avoid further delays. It is our view that good papers are shunted to other journals within a publisher to promote IFs of those journals.
8.7 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Efficient and fast review process. The quality of the reviews this time was great. The editor handled the submission very well.
9.6 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor handled the paper swiftly and the comments of reviewers were very helpful in streamlining and improving the paper.
19.2 weeks
24.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The overall handling of the manuscript was very pleasing and the reviewers' comments were very constructive. The time in review could be shorter but can be seen as justified due to the selection of appropriate reviewers - anyway, it was acceptable.
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: The feedback from Ceramics International was quick. The review quality was acceptable, although it was only one reviewer.
4.3 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
10.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Journal editors and reviewers were very efficient.
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
48 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
34 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We only received the rejection after we set a deadline to withdraw the submission. 5 weeks for an editorial rejection is completely unacceptable and disrespectful of the authors' time. In their FAQ, the journal states: "Why should I publish in Science Advances? There are many advantages to publishing in Science Advances: Speed – Science Advances aims to rigorously and quickly review manuscript submissions and rapidly publish articles online."
This is not true, quite the opposite: Science Advances is by far the slowest journal I have ever dealt with.
17.0 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
34.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: After 8 months of not receiving any response from the journal, we contacted them and they claimed that four of the reviewers had declined to review the paper due to the COVID-19, and only one reviewer had accepted to review the paper. It is interesting that the reviewer had suggested revision(the reviewer's comments were of value, however), but the editors decided to reject the paper and suggested a transfer to another journal of a lower ranking with a very high publication fee. So, they just wasted our time with no outcome!
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: The initial decision took far longer than my previously submitted manuscripts to this journal (in the past I've experienced ~6-7 weeks) but admittedly this was also during the start of the COVID pandemic. The manuscript was sent to two reviewers, one of which offered a one-line comment saying the manuscript "This is an exceptionally well-written manuscript. It also makes a significant contribution to the field on social network research methodology." The second reviewer wrote one paragraph but did not point to any necessary changes. After these initial reviews the editor gave the manuscript an "revise & resubmit w/ minor revisions" but it was not clear what either the reviewers or editor wanted to change. Upon inquiry to the editor, I resubmitted without changes and got the paper accepted. Although it was nice to have an acceptance w/o revisions, I felt that the reviewers did not give a thorough read as I failed to believe that there was not one thing worth revising.
16.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The entire process took way too long (for which they apologized). We received only one surprisingly low-quality and short review, ignoring all the main contributions of the paper, and only claiming false points. Unfortunately it was clear that the reviewer did not even read the paper -- he/she said "no" to all the structured questions like "is the paper written well", "is the procedure explained", etc. (well, it may sound ridiculous emphasizing this, but as one may guess we did explain our procedures with lengthy formal results and mathematical proofs backing it up. So, yes, he/she did not read the paper). Aside from the poor review, we got direct rejection without considering other reviews, just saying that it is unlikely to change their mind. More disappointing was that we did not have the chance to rebuttal the false claims. 

Myself and my co-authors are senior researchers with several prior publications in different top venues. This paper in particular was the result of several rounds of reading and polishing as well as consideration of inputs from multiple high-caliber colleagues. It was an extremely disappointing experience. 
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The feedback provided by the editor to justify the rejection was quite generic and not argumented, therefore not very useful.
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The feedback from the editor to justify the rejection was rather generic and not very useful. It would have been very useful to describe specific issues to be resolved or addressed by complementary experiments to make the manuscript potentially suitable to be sent to reviewers.
4.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Most of the reviewer criticisms were irrelevant but we nevertheless addressed them to have our paper accepted. Editorial handling was smooth.
8.7 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Not as fast as I had hoped but otherwise an excellent experience. Reviews were of high quality and the editor themelves took time to provide additional and very through feedback.
13.3 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
0.6 weeks
0.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Immediately accepted after 9.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
11.0 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
10.4 weeks
42.6 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Most of the reviews were thorough, careful and helpful, but the review process was unnecessarily slow with no responses and indifference from the editor. After the acceptance, it took a while to get the paper published, mostly because the production process introduced inexplicable errors that were not in my submitted version. Overall, the process was average, and I would submit to the journal again hoping that the slow process was just an unfortunate outlier.
13.6 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: The article was in review for over three months, and returned two very thin reviews. These raised no critical issues that would sink the paper, and the editor did not give clear reasons for outright rejection.