All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Review process was short. Reviews were informative and well-argued.

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.

Motivation: The review process was breathtakingly fast.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Motivation: Only one reviewer.
Extremely poor review and unclear reasons for rejection.

Motivation: "too descriptive"

Motivation: They took more time than expected time to accept the revised manuscript.

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.

Motivation: The editor ignored the external review process and rejected the paper after more than 2 years.

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

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.

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!!!).