Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
A highly frustrating experience with the peer-review system at Scientific Reports
After enduring 7 exhausting and draining rounds of peer review, our manuscript was ultimately rejected by this journal! Over the past few months, one of the reviewers was clearly using AI tools (like ChatGPT) to generate endless, word-by-word critiques, constantly raising entirely new demands in every single round of revision (a classic case of moving the goalposts).
Unfortunately, instead of exercising professional editorial oversight and stopping this flawed process, the editor allowed months of our research team's time, energy, and focus to be wasted, only to reject the paper after all that effort.
The lack of strict oversight over the review process, allowing reviewers to misuse AI to create endless loops of revisions, is a massive red flag for this journal. If you value your time, effort, and mental health as a researcher, I highly recommend reconsidering before submitting your hard work to Scientific Reports.
After enduring 7 exhausting and draining rounds of peer review, our manuscript was ultimately rejected by this journal! Over the past few months, one of the reviewers was clearly using AI tools (like ChatGPT) to generate endless, word-by-word critiques, constantly raising entirely new demands in every single round of revision (a classic case of moving the goalposts).
Unfortunately, instead of exercising professional editorial oversight and stopping this flawed process, the editor allowed months of our research team's time, energy, and focus to be wasted, only to reject the paper after all that effort.
The lack of strict oversight over the review process, allowing reviewers to misuse AI to create endless loops of revisions, is a massive red flag for this journal. If you value your time, effort, and mental health as a researcher, I highly recommend reconsidering before submitting your hard work to Scientific Reports.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 63.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I cannot recommend this journal if timeline and responsive editorial processing matter for your research.
Soon after the initial submission, the manuscript status showed "Under Review" for over two months. Upon contacting the editorial office for an update, I was informed that the paper had not actually been assigned to peer reviewers and was still awaiting initial editor evaluation. Despite giving the editorial team an opportunity to address the delay, no action was taken, and I ultimately had to withdraw the manuscript to avoid wasting further time toward the end of my research programme.
The portal status is misleading, and the lack of editorial responsiveness makes planning impossible. Authors with fixed project deadlines should look elsewhere.
Soon after the initial submission, the manuscript status showed "Under Review" for over two months. Upon contacting the editorial office for an update, I was informed that the paper had not actually been assigned to peer reviewers and was still awaiting initial editor evaluation. Despite giving the editorial team an opportunity to address the delay, no action was taken, and I ultimately had to withdraw the manuscript to avoid wasting further time toward the end of my research programme.
The portal status is misleading, and the lack of editorial responsiveness makes planning impossible. Authors with fixed project deadlines should look elsewhere.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 331.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
This journal claim to have fast turnover time within 3 months for first editorial decision, which is just highly untrue.
Motivation:
It took nearly 3 months to receive the first decision by the editor, after which the peer-review process stalled entirely due to an inability to secure reviewers. Follow-up inquiries were left unanswered by the editor, which led to us to withdraw the manuscript.
Motivation:
Six months after submitting my article, I finally received a message that "A preliminary review suggests that your manuscript is not ready to be sent out for peer review". I find this length of time excessive and unprofessional. My issue is not that the article was rejected, but that the journal took six months to decide the article would not even be sent to reviewers. During these six months, I asked multiple times for updates and indicative timescale for an answer. The responses I received often contained wrong information and I never once received a timescale for the reply. I would not recommend submitting to this journal.
Motivation:
Template reply:
We decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees due to editorial considerations such 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 work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that these findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications.
Although we cannot offer to publish your manuscript, my colleagues at Communications Biology will send your manuscript out for external review.
We decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees due to editorial considerations such 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 work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that these findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications.
Although we cannot offer to publish your manuscript, my colleagues at Communications Biology will send your manuscript out for external review.
Motivation:
The editorial process was extemely fast and communition was very good. The reviewer comments very appropited. They improved in general the manuscript.
Motivation:
The manuscript was trasnfered from Nat. Comm. to EMBO J. but the editor did not send it to review in the last one. Instead suggested Life Science Alliance to go to peer review
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 112.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Almost 4 months under editor assessment, before sending the manuscript out for peer review. I've tried to contact the Editorial Office twice, asking about the status of the manuscript, but received no response.
Motivation:
While the peer review process was handled in a reasonable timeframe of eight weeks, the overall editorial workflow experienced significant delays. Receiving the editorial decision took approximately ten months, and the total timeline from submission to publication is expected to reach 14 months. Communication with the editorial office was often slow, and the manuscript management system operates quite sluggishly. Improving editorial response times and system speed would greatly enhance the author experience.
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled through a structured and constructive peer-review process. The reviewers provided detailed and relevant comments, particularly regarding methodology, organization, and clarity, which contributed substantially to improving the manuscript. The editorial communication was generally clear, and the revision opportunity was appropriate. Although the process required substantial revisions, the feedback was useful and ultimately strengthened the scientific and editorial quality of the article. Overall, I consider the journal's review process rigorous, constructive, and professionally managed.
Motivation:
A basic review experience with reasonable reviewer reports. They were very patient with us, waiting through a post-PhD career change in the process.
Motivation:
Reviews had many superficial points.
10.0 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process itself was fast and efficient. A reviewer was secured quickly and provided helpful feedback. However, the editorial support and technical infrastructure were very disappointing. A technical glitch during the LaTeX file upload caused massive system errors, and due to generic and unhelpful support responses, the resubmission was delayed for several weeks. While the academic side was smooth, the technical handling needs major improvement.
Motivation:
My experience with Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy was very positive. The editorial process was professional, and the reviewer reports were detailed, constructive, and directly relevant to improving the manuscript’s methodological clarity, interpretation, and presentation. The editor communicated the decisions clearly, and the final minor revision was handled promptly. Although the second review round took somewhat longer, the overall timeline was reasonable, and the review process substantially strengthened the paper.
Motivation:
The reviews suffered from obvious flaws, confusing and confounding clearly stated information and then highly criticising the work based on their flawed understanding of it. Very few legitimate points were raised by the reviewers and the improvements to the manuscript were, as a result, marginal. It is likely that the exaggerated language used in the reviews led to the rejection, even though the reviewers themselves did both suggest improvements to be made. This should definitely have been classed as a "major revision" based on the reviews, rather than an outright rejection.
Motivation:
The editorial team handled the manuscript efficiently at every active stage: the two amendments requested during the initial technical check were resolved within a week, the editor was assigned on the same day the manuscript became ready for assignment, and the reviewers accepted the invitation and delivered their reports within two days of being invited — remarkably fast. The final phase was equally swift, with the revised manuscript passing the technical check and being accepted within four days. The only weak point was a long period of about 7.5 months between the receipt of the reviewer reports (22 July 2025) and the revision request (3 March 2026), during which no status updates were received; more frequent communication during this phase would have been helpful. Apart from this gap, we experienced the process as professional and well organized.
Motivation:
The editorial team was professional and responsive throughout. Although the manuscript required three revision rounds, each round was handled efficiently: reviewer reports arrived within about a week of the reviewers accepting the invitation, and decisions were communicated promptly after the reports were received. The feedback was consistently constructive and helped us improve the manuscript substantially, and the quick turnaround of our revisions was acknowledged by smooth technical checks. The main delay occurred at the very beginning, where it took roughly three weeks for the first reviewers to accept the invitation; a more proactive reviewer recruitment strategy could shorten this stage. Overall, despite the multiple rounds, the total time from submission to acceptance of about 3.5 months was reasonable, and we were satisfied with the process and its outcome.
Motivation:
We were very satisfied with the editorial process. The technical check was completed on the day of submission, and the manuscript was assigned to an editor and sent out for review within a week. The first round of review was remarkably fast — reviewer reports arrived about a week after the reviewers accepted the invitation — and the revision request was clear and constructive. After resubmission, the technical check and final acceptance followed within days, putting the total time from initial submission to acceptance at roughly seven weeks. The only minor point we would raise is that communication about the editorial status between the reviewer invitation and the receipt of reports was limited, but this did not affect the outcome, and the speed and professionalism of the process far outweighed it.
Motivation:
The submission process was smooth and efficient, and we had a great experience publishing our study in this journal.
Motivation:
The editorial process was smoother. One of the reviewer was bit sloppy but overall good input to improve the manuscript. Very happy with the outcome!
Motivation:
Excellent effort by the editor to secure a supportive reviewer. The reviewer turned out to be relentless, but the final manuscript is much improved in that it connects well with existing literature -- something we didn't manage well originally.
Motivation:
Knowledgeable reviewers, one of which was very much concerned with paper structure and the other one more with substance, so a nice complement. Editorial guidance was useful.
Motivation:
Quality or detail from one reviewer in particular proved very helpful and informative. The time-course of handling or review was slightly longer than stated online.
Motivation:
The timing was prolonged, and the AE did not need to refer to the reviewer in the second round. One reviewer had fully accepted the paper, and the other merely suggested adding two figures to the appendix. The decision could have been easily made by the AE.
Motivation:
6.25 : First submission
7.20 : First decision (Major revision)
7.29 : Revision submitted
8.14 : Second decision (minor revision)
8.17 : Revision submitted
8.19 : Accepted
7.20 : First decision (Major revision)
7.29 : Revision submitted
8.14 : Second decision (minor revision)
8.17 : Revision submitted
8.19 : Accepted
Motivation:
Good journal with good response team but now going fully open access
Motivation:
The very area-specific journal handled by experts in the field
Motivation:
The review was very constructive. However, we used AI to create tables from raw data, for data analysis, English polishing and rephrasing (to meet the strict 20-pages length requirement). The paper was rejected due to journal policy, as it turned out, does not allow AI-generated content.