Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
16.3 weeks
33.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
Long process with a range in the quality of reviewers.
14.3 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2024
Motivation:
Good quality reviews, but editorial handling was slow
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
the referee did not clearly understand the manuscript, and the comments are easily addressed, but the editor rejected the manuscript directly...
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
took too long to get desk rejection. They said it was because they were busy.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2023
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
Too late and rude. No comments on our study.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
Editor's comment: "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."
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
It is too long to take 3 weeks for an editorial rejection.
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
8.1 weeks
23.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
n/a
n/a
17 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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
2.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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 reports
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 reports
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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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 reports
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.'
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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
14.3 weeks
42.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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 reports
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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
5.0 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
n/a
n/a
12 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 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."