Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The submission system of the journal is modern and comfortable. The consideration of the MS was rather fast. The first reviewer was positive on our MS, but had some serious remarks like making an experimental research for a theoretical paper.
However, the second reviewer was too picky. Some of his suggestions were out of the line and rather stupid. Like, for example, the comparison of relative total energies of the complexes does not make sense. However, it was not a comparison of absolute energies. We send the MS back following the revision with step-by-step thorough answers. But reviewer 2 was still too opposing towards our MS and rejected it the second time also.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editorial assistant changed some minor formatting without sending back to the author in order to speed up the process which is great. The rejection was quick and acknowledged that a review would have only delayed the decision
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Rejected
Motivation: The only thing that bothered me was not having any feedback on what could be improved, just knowing that it was rejected.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Gostei da rapidez e objetividade dos comentários sobre pontos a melhorar
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I had a the worst experience with an editor I have had so far (publishing scientific articles for 10+ years).
14.3 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: Good quality reviews, but editorial handling was slow
1.7 weeks
1.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
54 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The decision read like this:

"Thank you for submitting your work to Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (ASFS). After my initial review, I regret to inform you that your manuscript is not appropriate for the journal. The work seems well done, but we generally do not publish research focused on making efficient use of conventional inputs.

ASFS prioritizes interdisciplinary, participatory research exploring transitions toward sustainable, agroecologically based farming and food systems. We are particularly interested in work that focuses on agroecosystem redesign using ecological principles, as well as food system transformation based on agroecological production, equity, participation, democracy, and social justice."

Funny it took that long for the journal to reach a decision. I do not recommend this journal to anyone!
n/a
n/a
44 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor clearly read the article, but for a desk reject this was rather slow. The editor was encouraging and was suggesting an alternative journal.
1.4 weeks
1.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: he editor hasn't even read the work's abstract thoroughly; the response makes it evident. While there's no criticism regarding the quality of the manuscript, the editor stated that the purportedly 'new' methodology isn't actually novel. But this is false.
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The review process, spanning two months, culminated in just one reviewer's comment, which recommended rejection. The brevity of the feedback and its content suggested a lack of understanding of the manuscript's field, making for a discouraging review experience. It is advisable not to submit to this journal based on this experience.
11.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: We had two revisions in reasonable time, we were asked to remove a part of the manuscript in a reasonable way. We responded to some criticisms of one of the referees and the editor gave us right by accepting the ms.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was handled quite smoothly . It was rather disappointing though that even though both reviewers clearly appreciated the merit of the paper and that their criticisms were entirely addressable, the editor recommended rejection without allowing for resubmission.
7.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: The whole review process was relatively quite speedy. The initial response from reviewers was positive but brief. The typical request for revision after review was instead replaced with a rejection followed by a request for re-submission as a 'new manuscript'. This seemed unnecessary.
13.0 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editors were very helpful and prompt in responding. The delay in review process was on reviewer’s part as they did not respond to editor despite multiple reminders.
3.3 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Rejected
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.7 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
13.7 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editors are reactive and precise in their answers. The review process took exactly the average 106 days mentioned on the journal website's metrics. The comments were very thorough and helped improve the paper.
15.4 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
5.3 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: We were very satisfied with the entire submission process as well as with our editor and reviewers. All of them were competent in our field. Their suggestions were very helpful and significantly improved the quality of our paper. The entire process was also quick and without any delays.
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
27.6 weeks
31.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The journal now uses the Elsevier "Track Submission System" which is quite nice. According to the statuses shown, two potential reviewers declined to referee, while the third one accepted and carried out their duty in roughly three months. The report was spot on, and it felt that they went through the manuscript with care.

My only complaint is that it appears that the first reviewer was invited two months after the initial submission, and my revised version a month after being sent in. Both times, things started to move when I sent an email inquiring whether the process was moving along. On the one hand, the help desk was fast in reaching the handling editor and having things moving, but on the other hand a quicker handling editor would have meant a total handling time two to three months less.
32.6 weeks
81.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: We had a tough reviewer, but in the end managed to convince them. The core of the argument is still the same; I'm not sure the article is two years better now, but we got there.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 51.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: After waiting for more than 50 days for the first initial technical check we decided finally to withdraw our manuscript from Scientific Reports.
n/a
n/a
351 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We submitted the manuscript in February 2023.
At February 21, 2023, we received a confirmation that the manuscript was successfully submitted.
At May 9, 2023, we informed about the status of the article, and we received a prompt answer that the manuscript was under peer review.
At September 4, 2023, we informed again and received a prompt answer. They aswered that teh review process typically takes 12 to 16 weeks, but that there are occasions during which it takes a little bit longer.
At February 7, 2024, we informed again (this time we also emailed the Editor; not only the editorial assistant). The Editor answered promptly that the article was rejected because they could not find reviewers.
We did not receive any feedback about the contents our article.
However, the Taylor & Francis editorial team was friendly enough to do specific suggestions to send our paper to four low-impact commercial journals of Taylor & Francis.
52.7 weeks
53.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My article was a mechanistic study with crystal structure and to support the claim there was biochemical analysis also. They rejected by saying "it lacks the kind of deep mechanistic insight into fundamental molecular or biochemical processes". In contrast to their view, the paper is all about atomic level mechanistic analysis with crystal structure and kinetic analysis. I really dont have any issue with the rejection as it do not fit the reputation or whatever. But I really felt cheated with the reason they gave. It clearly shows that they have not read the article at all.
3.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Our submission was invited by the editor-in-chief, who later rejected it when one of the two reviewers did not support publication.

Be wary of the journal’s unusual requirements, such as citing only references <5 years old. If your submission is rejected, it will require work to reformat it for publication elsewhere.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor noted that the manuscript was more geared toward an experimental technique rather than coral reefs themselves and, therefore, would be more suitable elsewhere.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript was rejected but with possibility to transfer to sister journal with more focused readership.
95.0 weeks
95.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Rejected
Motivation: The longest review process in my career. I submitted my manuscript in spring of 2022. After 44 days I received an email from the editor-in-chief that he read my manuscript and is sending my paper out for review. 159 days later, I send an email asking if there was any progress with the reviews of my paper. I did not receive an answer. I approached the journal once again in 2023, again without a reaction. Finally, I approached the journal in January 2024 – 20 months after the initial submission. After first receiving a generic reply about the paper being under review, two weeks later, I received a personalized apology from the journal explaining that the delay has been caused by waiting for the second review and that they had to eventually change the reviewer. The deadline for the second review being next month. Finally, after almost 22 months under review, I received two detailed reviews together with a reject decision from the editor. No mentioning of the time it took them to review the paper. To put the long story short – if you would like to have your paper reviewed in a reasonable amount of time, try another journal.
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
Motivation: the referee did not clearly understand the manuscript, and the comments are easily addressed, but the editor rejected the manuscript directly...