Reviews for "Nature Communications"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Nature Communications n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications 18.7
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: The review process was very long.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Nature Communications 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: My experience with Nature Communications was the worst I've had out of the 13 different journals I have published in. Initially, there was a delay in the review of our manuscript because they could not track down the third reviewer they selected. Then after waiting another month they still could not get the reviews so they sent us low-quality reviews. One simply said accept as is, the other literally stated they did not read the whole paper because they didn't like it. Our handling editor had no familiarity with the subject matter and was therefore unable to address the integrity and quality of these reviews or provide their own opinion. We then successfully appealed for a revised manuscript to be sent to a third reviewer. After almost 3 months, we received two more reviews from the two original reviewers, which contained almost the exact same responses. This was curious given that the sole request in our appeal was to send our paper to a new reviewer. But we decided not to pursue the issue further. Ultimately, we were failed by the handling editor, who should have done a better job at managing the chosen reviewers and inspecting their reviews for quality and potential bias before accepting them.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 23.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications 6.7
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Nature Communications 9.6
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Nature Communications n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: "In this case, while we do not question the validity of [...], I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Nature Communications 4.1
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The review process was relatively quick and painless. However, it was made a little complicated by having an editor and sub-edit assigned on the other side of the world. This led to slow communications at times which made the process painfully tedious. The final editorial review was also quite tedious with literally 5 pages of editorial comments which needed to be addressed. Most of these were standard requests for stylistic editing which did not necessarily apply, but we were given the impression they needed to be addressed nonetheless. In one case there was a request which was not clear and attempts to get clarification took almost 2 weeks. This was very frustrating at the point of acceptance, exacerbated by the time difference between authors and editorial staff.
Nonetheless, we found the process sufficiently thorough that we were able to produce a very high quality paper in the end.
Nature Communications 13.0
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Nature Communications n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: The editor opens many tabs for editor's works. So mistake could occur easily. I think they are overworked.
Nature Communications 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Process speed was normal. Reviews were useful but slightly aggressive.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Rather quick immediate rejection (12 days) but much longer than other nature journals.
Nature Communications 3.7
weeks
3.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Nature Communications 6.4
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Since there was a contradiction between reviewers, we expected editors to solicit additional opinion about the manuscript from practicing scientists. They did not and eventually took a decision after discussing with other editorial colleagues.
Nature Communications 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Our submission to this journal was essentially due to the "quick review process" highlighted on the website. However, it took more than 2 weeks for the manuscript to be assigned an editor as indicated by the online portal. While we were fine with that as well, the entire process from this point onwards was just frustrating. For the next 40 days, there was minimal response from the editorial team. We were informed two weeks before our rejection that they would update us if the paper went out for review and finally received our comments after a total of 62 days of review. While the editor apologized for the delay due to lack of reviewers, we were appalled by the language used by the reviewers to describe the study. It was unprofessional and outright rude. While failing to comment on our scientific output, the reviewer harped us for our language skills, was extremely biased towards the data, asked us to perform experiments which were already present in the manuscript and even cited a wrong reference when stating why our study was not interesting enough. The other reviewer provided interesting insights into the study and we appreciated their efforts. However, comments received from the first reviewer definitely impacted our opinion of the journal and their review process.
Nature Communications 3.4
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Smooth and speedy process, and a responsive editor. I will certainly submit to Nature Comm again
Nature Communications 7.3
weeks
20.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The reviewers raised important points that, once addressed, significantly improved the manuscript. However, the second round of revisions took too long. The first reviewer accepted to revise the manuscript one more time and then apparently vanished into thin air. The editor waited a long time before contacting a replacement reviewer. We had to contact the editor to get feed back. Also, the online manuscript tracking system is not at all informative as our manuscript had been "under consideration" the whole time and never changed status. We are happy with the outcome and appreciated the comments made by the reviewers, but found the overall process very long.
Nature Communications 28.0
weeks
38.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The first round of reviews took an abnormally long time (28 weeks), and even then an incomplete set of reviews were sent. These review reports were good and helpful to improve the manuscript. Subsiquent rounds were less helpful.

The proofing process was very poorly done. The online proofing system was not very user friendly. There seems to be a major step between the online proof and as published. A major omission was made and a correction had to be made (by the journal). There are still typos in the final published version that were not in the submission.
Nature Communications 5.0
weeks
24.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: Overall the review process did improve and add to the work and paper significantly. But then over 1.25yrs that was bound to happen even without review/editorial comments. Essentially we ended up with 1.5 papers worth of work. By then one of the reviewers - the one who had led to most of grunt work supplementary data addition to the manuscript - was pointing out our own conference abstract which we had presented about parts of the work meanwhile as reason for non-significance & non-novelty! Thankfully the editor didn't care for that one.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Very fast editorial rejection, stated reason was that the findings were not "sufficiently striking".
Nature Communications 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Manuscript was sent to three referees. One positive, one neutral, one negative --> rejection.
Overall satisfied with quality of reviews & handling time.
Nature Communications 5.6
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: There are both advantages and disadvantages to Nat Comms. Upon initial submission, the editor requested that we revise and resubmit. This took three months, and resulted in a much better paper. We then went through two further review rounds, so that it was finally about 8 months before the manuscript was accepted. It then took another two months before publication, which is bizarre given that we submitted publication-ready latex proofs, and this is an online journal. We received good feedback from the reviewers, which ultimately resulted in a much better paper (!), but we agree with other authors, that the process takes far too long. Our eProofs were sent back to us with far too many simple errors to justify the GBP 3,700.00 (tax included) publication fee. Shocking, and makes you wonder how much the Nature management are profiting, at the expense of the copyediting firm in Bangladesh, who actually do the hard work of the production.

If we have one recommendation for the Nat Comms team it is to stop claiming that this is a "rapid communication" type journal. Why claim rapid turnover (one month I think), when the actual review process takes much longer? Claiming it is once month from the point of acceptance to the point of publication is trying to make it look much more rapid than it is.

Still, an excellent journal, and supportive of junior academics.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Nature Communications 10.3
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The review process was overall very long, and some of the reviewers' comments were not relevant to our manuscript. The editor was, however, very understanding when it came to decide which additional experiments were needed and which ones were not. Overall, the manuscript's quality improved considerably during the review process, mostly due to the additional experiments we were requested to do.
The proofs of the article required us a thorough review, because several mistakes (e.g. loss of italic, mislabel of references) had been introduced by the company that dealt with the manuscript.
Nature Communications 10.7
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The whole process was drawn out with many delays. We didn't receive out initial reviewer's reports until 11 weeks after submitting as they had trouble finding the right expert to review the paper. We had to contact the editor on multiple occasions for updates on the manuscripts progress.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications 12.0
weeks
30.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The turnaround times for all editorial decisions was exceptionally slow. Even after we received 3 review reports indicating now changes were needed, it was almost 1 month before we received acceptance. The manuscript was accepted 6 weeks ago and does not appear in PubMed. I would be hesitant about sending a manuscript here if there were competition and a need for a timely editorial process.
Nature Communications 12.1
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: The overall handling of manuscript was good, however I didn't like the manuscript tracking in nature communication witch offers much less information about manuscript status then is common in other journals.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Nature Communications 5.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Reviewer's comments were fair and largely in agreement with each other. They highlighted results in our study that bore too much similarity to earlier research, and that the novel aspects of our study were underexplored.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Nature Communications n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: The message they sent was: "I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Nature Communications n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017