Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The experience with the journal was good. Three reviewers were assigned and a total of more than 10 questions were raised including the grammer. All questions were answered and sent back to the editor. Result: Accepted without further revision
Motivation:
For my field, this was an extremely fast turnaround from first submission, to revision, to acceptance. I was also satisfied with the quality of the peer reviews I received.
Motivation:
The online tracking systems of the journal works very well. However, the overall satisfaction could be improved by improving the reviewing process and revision time after resubmission.
Motivation:
kind review with helpful comments
Motivation:
This journal has very high (and meticulous) standards for publication. I hope other journals follow suit.
Motivation:
It took more than a month for an editor to be assigned to the manuscript and 35 days for the decision to send to review. First round of review wasn't fast (~4.5 months). Second round took a lot longer than it should have, with acceptance coming more than two months after re-submission but no feedback, changes, or indication that reviewers were re-engaged at all. However, they were very quick in demanding payment of publishing fees and reminding us that payment hadn't been made (the reminder came after less than one business day! Accepted on a Friday, reminder to pay came the following Sunday)
Motivation:
The quality of the first reviews was very good. However, maybe too many rounds of reviews were required
Motivation:
We fruitlessly waited about 4 weeks between time referees concluded their reports and the editor Final decision. However, the Editor simply reported reviewers' reports without any personal evaluation of the paper. Reviewers' reports were quite short (one made by few lines)
We fruitlessly waited about 4 weeks between time referees concluded their reports and the editor Final decision. However, the Editor simply reported reviewers' reports without any personal evaluation of the paper. Reviewers' reports were quite short (one made by few lines)
Motivation:
The editor was excellent in advising the best format for the article.
Motivation:
Despite a rejection decision, the useful reviewer comments helped the paper get published elsewhere.
Motivation:
The reviewers took their time, but the constructive and critical reviews were a big contribution to improve the manuscript. The entire review and publication process was without problems.
Motivation:
The review process was slow, but ultimately we got two good reviews that very much improved the final paper. Unfortunately the total length of handling time makes Nature Communications difficult to recommend, in addition the publication fee is astronomical.
Motivation:
Complete publication procedure was very fast and review comments of the editorial board were of high quality. Mrs. Franzen-Reuter is doing a great job in regard of quality and review procedure.
Motivation:
It was rather straightforward.
Motivation:
Two reviewers. One pointed out the problems regarding the rationale of the research question, and the comment definitely helped us improve the manuscript before submitting to another journal (accepted after minor revision). However, the other referee quibbled about well-established experimental procedure, which is used by thousands of researchers, without giving any reason. In the decision letter, the editor did not refer to the second reviewer, which I believe is fairly reasonable; but it seemed that SBB does not advance the manuscript unless both reviewers are unequivocally supportive, and therefore the editor did not ask for additional review.
Motivation:
Initially it took some time to find reviewers, as the paper was not sent for review for longer than a month. However, communication with the editor during this time was excellent and they were receptive to new reviewer suggestions and generally kept us updated.
The reviews, when they eventually came in, were of high quality, and helped improve the paper. I liked the interactive forum too, I'd like for more publishers to consider this model.
Overall a good experience.
The reviews, when they eventually came in, were of high quality, and helped improve the paper. I liked the interactive forum too, I'd like for more publishers to consider this model.
Overall a good experience.
Motivation:
It's a journal that offered reviews in a timely manner. If only they all did.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was handled terribly by this journal. First our initial submission was returned to us for not including a supplement with full size blots, which is specifically stated in their guidelines to only be required after the paper is accepted. Next it took ~7 weeks for the journal to assign an associate editor despite us including 3 editor suggestions in the cover letter. Multiple emails later, we provided the journal with a list of~15 associate editors with the necessary expertise to handle our manuscript. After finally being assigned an editor, it took ~6 more weeks to find reviewers. The paper was submitted in early January. By the time the reviews cam back it was mid-April. Addressing the reviewers concerns was relatively simple and the paper was returned to the journal in a few weeks. The paper was accepted for publication in late June. It is July 17 as I write this and we still have no indication as to when the paper will actually be published. In the words of my PI, "I've published over 200 papers and this is by far the worst journal I have ever dealt with."
Motivation:
Worst experience for this journal. The status of my manuscript remain manuscript submitted since three months. I got a mail that they have mailed 20 editors for handling my manuscript and nobody is accepting ant request and please withdraw your paper. How is dat possible even in a repute journal like this. Utter time wastage..... Disheartened
Motivation:
Very quick editorial decision. The reviewe were also quick and insightful.
Motivation:
All three referees agreed that the manuscript was not interesting enough for their field...which is totally correct as the manuscript was written for a different field. We have no idea why an editor would send the manuscript to 3 referees from his own field instead of using referees from the target audience and the field we work in. However, our experience matches the experience from other research groups which submitted manuscripts to Nat. Comm. that were handled by the same editor and ended up with very bizarre peer review experiences. Accordingly, the submission experience with Nat. Comm. may be great for other groups ending up with different editors, but in our case, the experience was definitely subpar.