Reviews for "Nature Communications"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2022
Motivation: We specifically ask the reviewer not to consider someone as reviewer, as our findings are highly critical of that person's work. Yet reviewer 1 was clearly that person (exact same viewpoint and same wording of specific parts of their papers) and picked out every possible misunderstanding to reject the paper.
n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
Motivation: This feels like a template rejection letter without even properly reading the MS. How does one infer that? Here is how. It has been 2.4 weeks since we submitted the MS and like all other reviews, we get the same reply. At this point, the editorial reviews are just pointing towards its new open-access sub-journals, which in this case is the one mentioned above, in their reply. ALso kindly see the details of the editor who replies. Pretty sure they are not working on any similar field.
Immediately accepted after 17.4 weeks Accepted (im.) 2020
n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2020
2.7
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2022
Motivation: The editorial process is quick, and the review reports are of high quality. One reviewer gave substantial comments that improved our paper a lot, although it did take us much effort.
n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2022
Motivation: The reviewers were basing their arguments on information that was not true. Editor did not intervene. One reviewer gave 21 major comments, most of which were already present in the manuscript. There was a fundamental flaw in the way the manuscript was handled. The manuscript was published somewhere else with a higher impact factor a few months after the rejection.
n/a n/a 23.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
7.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: I am an experienced researcher with more than 30 peer-reviewed papers published in Q1 journals and more than 12 years of research experience. This has been the worst experience ever in my career in a review process. The quality of 2 of the 3 review reports was absolutely dreadful and the editorial team was completely unable to make their own judgement. I would neve submit a paper to Nature Communications again and I would never recommend anyone to do so. It has been a total waste of time and a very frustrating experience.
1.1
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The editorial process is thorough and seemingly fair. The reviews were appropriate. My biggest problem with this journal is their arcane submission and review process. A paper that was very well received by reviewers and that required relatively minor revisions still took more than one year between initial submission and publication. If you are concerned about timeliness of publication, or being scooped, this is not your journal.
2.9
weeks
3.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: I published with this journal multiple times in the past year and they are great in handling everything. Their review process takes less than a month and they are very lenient with editing your article even the night before it goes online. For my recent publication, we had to change the acknowledgement and we realized this one week after we submitted the 2nd version of proof and everything was set for publication. Luckily, before the paper goes online, we were able to resolve the issue.
n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: My manuscript received an editorial rejection at Nature Medicine for reason X, but I was told that it was still interesting enough to be sent to Nature Communications. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. The process was on par with other journal experiences, but I do not appreciate the inconsistency between what the editor at Nature Medicine told me when transferring to Nature Comms, and the final evaluation at Nature Comms.
9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: The review process takes three months, though they claim 'We are committed to providing an efficient service for both authors and reader'. During the three months, review information is hardly updated. Finally, we received two reviews. One review is severely biased, and the other is also not helpful, which makes the review process a complete waste of time.
Please do not contact the editors because they do not reply.

'I sincerely apologize for the delay in sending you a decision; we encountered some difficulties in securing a third reviewer with appropriate expertise. Though we would have preferred to consider advice from a third reviewer, we have decided to go ahead with a decision to prevent further delays. Unfortunately, in light of the serious concerns raised by the referees, I regret that our decision must be negative, and we are unable to offer to publish your manuscript in Nature Communications.'
n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
14.3
weeks
42.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2022
Motivation: The editor took very long to process the review and send us the editorial decision, which added to the time it took for this paper to be published.
10.1
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: You will see that, while the reviewers find your work of interest, they raise substantive concerns that cast doubt on the advance your findings represent over earlier work and the strength of the novel conclusions that can be drawn at this stage. Unfortunately, these reservations are sufficiently important to preclude publication of this study in Nature Communications.
n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
5.0
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2020
n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Motivation: Was rejected by editor because the work did not "represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications". However, the editor recommended we transfer to Nature Communications Medicine, which we did.
n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Motivation: Transferred from Nature Climate Change upon suggestion. "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."
15.7
weeks
47.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
12.9
weeks
19.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The initial review was pretty slow (took 3 months) but otherwise the manuscript was handled well. It has been much improved by now.
9.3
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The editor was very supportive of our submission and we received several updates on the review process, including explanations regarding delays. Unfortunately, the requests received by one of the reviewers were severely biased. Nevertheless, the extensive revision, in general, allowed us to improve the manuscript significantly.
To our surprise, compared to other journals, the editorial requests concerning the preparation of the manuscript for publication were rather extensive, i.e. adjustments that had to be performed by the authors, especially considering the journal's high APC.
n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: We received three reviews. One was openly hostile and recommended rejection, one recommended acceptance, and the other minor revision. Editor ultimately decided the findings lacked novelty. Overall, the reviews were of very high quality, and we were able to address the comments/concerns and publish elsewhere.
4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2021
7.9
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The duration of review process takes much longer amid this pandemics when compare to the previous submission . However, the editor was very helpful and informative about the manuscript status. Whenever we have any questions, she responds promptly.
n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Motivation: Generic desk rejection after 2.6 weeks with their editorial team. It’s disappointing to have a our work sitting with this editor for such a long time and came back with a rejection. I think nature communication should have more savvy editorial staff to assess manuscripts. Among all of the publishers I’ve interacted with, this team is by far the worst experience.
6.9
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The speed is normal. But it is necessary to push the editor in every step. A day after the push-email, the comments came back. Reviewers are professional. After the revision according to the comments from the reviewers, we regretted to summit to Nat Com. It seems worthy to fit Nature Cell Biology or Molecular Cell.
7.0
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: After going through 2 revisions where each review process took almost a month, the paper was accepted. It took almost 8 months from the day the paper was submitted to the day the paper was accepted.
n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: fast generic desk rejection
n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: Generic desk-rejection.