Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 134.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: For four months, the manuscript status has been “editor assignment pending,” meaning that it was not even reviewed. I have sent emails about my concern to the EO periodically. The officer said that he contacted the editor, but no reply from the editor. In addition, several other emails I sent to EO was ignored for about a month. I also sent an email directly to the editor, but I did not get a reply from her, either.
11.3 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
5.7 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Our experience with this Journal was excellent. The manuscript was sent to external per-review within 1 week, within 1 month we got their response. There were 3 reviewers, 1 rejected the manuscript, 2nd found minor errors, whereas the 3rd put much effort to underscore shortcomings, suggested to perform additional experiments and reorganize the manuscript to make it more reader-friendly. All reviewers were all professsionals and experts in the fields. The manuscript improved a lot after revision.
The paper was published in 7 days after acceptance.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Review process was short. Reviews were informative and well-argued.
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: I was overall very happy with the reviews I received from this journal and their reasoning for rejecting the manuscript. It also was a fairly quick process. However, I believe one of the reviews was a bit unprofessional, as they started it by saying they were recommending rejection and then provided reasons for it. This is in contrast to how I've been taught to review a manuscript.
7.9 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is different from usual review procedures.
The editor informs the authors about the reviews that can be consulted on an interactive review forum. This way, each answer can be posted independently, not as a block, allowing to discuss specific points with the reviewers until the revised manuscript is endorsed by both of them. In this interactive forum, the editor can also be directly contacted.
7.1 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was breathtakingly fast.
2.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
7.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: For author-produced articles, JoVE separates the review process for the manuscript and the video. Manuscript was reviewed by 2 reviewers, that did not see the video and had only minor questions regarding the paper. Video part was thoroughly checked by the editor/producers, who asked for a lot of minor changes.
11.0 weeks
37.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Accepted
16.9 weeks
43.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: One reviewer who initially reviewed my manuscript did not respond when they was re-invited to re-review my revised manuscript. It made the review process significantly slower, but the editor did his best to expedite the process.
4.6 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
2.6 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
59.3 weeks
59.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: Very fast and fluent process, with reviewers that really do an effort to read a paper and review it properly. Given the very low acceptance rate (<7%), it is not unexpected that the paper was rejected
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
52.1 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: I have sent my manuscript in the journal. The process took nearly one year, even I had sent 3 emails to ask about my manuscript status. I hope this journal will improve this because it really took very long time, even after that I got a rejection with some simple reasons.
28.1 weeks
28.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Slow but thorough process. Only 11% acceptance rate. Narrow disciplinary focus, reviewers said the paper wasn't "screen studies" enough. .
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: The process took a bit longer than expected and was not easy to track, but the quality of the reviews made the wait worthwhile. Although the reviews did not recommend rejection per se, the paper was rejected. No reason was specified, but the range of suggested revisions in the reviews was probably too large for the journal to bother with "revise and resubmit" given its generally low acceptance rate. Under the circumstances, the decision seemed fair.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: Only one reviewer.
Extremely poor review and unclear reasons for rejection.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It was not up to ACS nano, probably.
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
0
Rejected
16.0 weeks
40.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "too descriptive"
1.4 weeks
1.4 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Rejected
4.7 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: They took more time than expected time to accept the revised manuscript.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Rejected
Motivation: After we asked the Editor for any update regarding the paper the 1st round of review came quickly. Reports from 1 reviewer in particular were overly destructive and led to outright rejection.
19.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Accepted
Motivation: The most painful, inefficient and frustrating dealing with a journal I have had in a 25 year scientific career. After a ridiculous battle with their initial quality check which meant that it took 2 weeks after submission to get anyone to even look at it, it took an outrageous 19 weeks for primary review. After this infuriating wait, the feeble comments that came back could have been written by an undergraduate that had scanned the paper in 5 minutes.
We turned the revised version around in a week, had yet another battle with their content management system and quality check, and it still took a further 14 days to accept the minute changes that had been requested. I had submitted 2 papers nearly simultaneously to Scientific Reports, and the second was treated equally inefficiently. The administrative/editorial staff seemed perpetually overwhelmed, responses to emailed inquiries were slow or absent. We were desperate to get our work published in time to be able to cite it in our grant applications before their respective deadlines and were unable to, which weakened our applications significantly.

Extremely frustrating. We will not submit to Scientific Reports again.
20.7 weeks
35.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
30.9 weeks
106.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: The editor ignored the external review process and rejected the paper after more than 2 years.
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I received the following comments from the editor-in-chief: "The topic and the methods are by now relatively standard, so that the innovative part is not up to the expected level.
While the paper deserves to be published, I would say, the proper forum is some journal devoted to mathematical physics."
12.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: reviewers argued that pper was not theoretical enough for this journal - this is more of an editorial decision in my opinion. reviews were very short and superficial, no real effort from 2 reviewers to give constructive criticism, editor could have offered a revise to sharpen the theoretcial contribution
15.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Very competitive journal, but relatively fast process with grounded reviews
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection time, particularly since the manuscript was sent just before Christmas. Editor comments were not extremely helpful, but at least it seemed that they had looked into the manuscript.
21.7 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I feel that the handling of the manuscripts is subject to publication bias.

The manuscripts are not reviewed properly, they reject based on the claim that some info is not present while it is present (very clearly presented in material and methods section, 1st paragraph, not easy to miss!!!).