All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: My experience with the peer-review process was very poor, despite the process initially appearing relatively efficient. The manuscript received two diametrically opposed reports. Reviewer A described the argument as unclear and stated that “No revisions will save the article,” but provided none of the numbered major revisions or page/line references requested by the journal's review form, nor any minor revisions. Reviewer B, by contrast, gave a substantive account of the manuscript's argument, stated that the thesis was successfully demonstrated, described the work as “ground-breaking,” recommended that it “be published as is,” and explicitly indicated that neither major nor minor revisions were required.

Despite these contradictory recommendations, the editorial decision stated that “the reviewers recommend significant revisions” and required an itemised, point-by-point response explaining the changes made. Since neither reviewer had actually recommended significant revisions—one recommended no revision and the other stated that revision could not save the manuscript—I resubmitted the manuscript unchanged with a detailed response explaining the difficulty. I explicitly welcomed substantive and actionable criticism and asked the editor either to identify what revisions were required, adjudicate between the contradictory reports, or obtain another assessment. I also made clear that I would respect rejection if the editor considered the negative review decisive. The manuscript was then rejected without substantive explanation.

I subsequently raised a procedural query with the publishers of the journal, expressly stating that I was not appealing the rejection. The editor then disclosed that he had himself recognised that the reviews were contradictory and had appointed a third reviewer specifically to help determine whether the negative review had merit. That reviewer accepted the assignment but failed to submit a report after more than four weeks, after which the editor proceeded without it. The editor explained that he gave particular weight to the negative reviewer because he considered that reviewer a leading Belhar scholar and believed I could improve the manuscript's “clarity” and “logic.”

The editor also characterised my resubmission as failing to engage meaningfully with the review and stated that I had provided no substantive rationale for why the article should be accepted despite the concerns raised. I found this particularly problematic because I had not requested acceptance: my response expressly identified rejection as a legitimate outcome and asked for editorial adjudication because the reports provided no coherent programme of revision.

After I pursued the procedural concern with the publisher, they acknowledged that my complaint concerned the process rather than the academic decision, but concluded that interpretation of reviewer reports, revision requirements and assessment of an author's response fell within the Editor-in-Chief's discretion. The publisher characterised the matter as involving “differences in interpretation,” found no breach warranting publisher intervention, and closed the matter.

My dissatisfaction is therefore not that the manuscript was rejected or that one reviewer disliked it. Negative peer review is an ordinary part of academic publishing. My concern is that two plainly contradictory recommendations were represented to me as “the reviewers recommend significant revisions”; I was instructed to provide a point-by-point account of revisions that neither reviewer had requested; and when I asked the editor to adjudicate that contradiction rather than invent revisions myself, the manuscript was rejected. The editor subsequently confirmed that he had recognised the contradiction from the outset strongly enough to seek a third opinion.

The experience substantially undermined my confidence in the journal's editorial process and, subsequently, in AOSIS's oversight of that process. I would not submit to this journal again.

Motivation: Two detailed and constructive reviews and an editor who helped us focus on improving the paper within what was possible with the data. Very fast decision once our extensive revisions were handed in.

Motivation: The reviewers' comments were very thorough and the handling by the editor always happened swiftly. However, I regret the editor's decision to reject the manuscript given that both reviewers recommended major revisions, with comments that could have been incorporated within the timespan allowed post-review.

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.

Motivation: This journal claim to have fast turnover time within 3 months for first editorial decision, which is just highly untrue.

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: The editorial process was extemely fast and communition was very good. The reviewer comments very appropited. They improved in general the manuscript.

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: Reviews had many superficial points.

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 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: 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 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: 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.