Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.0 weeks
44.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
Poor editoral work, he/she let through offensive comments from a reviewer. Moreover, editor was unable to make any own decisions - just forwarding emails. Editor did not read cover letters. Definitely last time I will submit anything to this journal.
8.3 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were sensible and helped improve the manuscript. Responsiveness of the editor was a tad on the slow side but nothing to complain about.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2025
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2025
9.0 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2024
5.3 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
I was prepared for a very long process from initial submission to final decision, and this proved to be true. However, the editorial side of the manuscript handling process was relatively quick; it was the peer review process that took the most time. Communication with the editor was positive. She kept me up to date as much as possible and was very understanding when I had questions, always responding in a timely and respectful manner. Most of the peer reviews were fair and helpful, and I believe the manuscript improved as a result of the peer review process. Overall, I had a positive experience and would consider submitting future work to this journal.
8.3 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
In the last round one reviewer did not disclose to us some concerns, but only confidentially with the editor. The editor asked for and expert advise from a 5th (5th!!!!!) reviewer.
Another reviewer had still one comment and we answered to it by email to the editor (who never answered in that regard).
We got rejected without actually knowing why since one of the reviewer did not disclose his/her concerns with us.
The handling of the manuscript was really poor and unethical. Further we satisfied 3 out of 4 reviewers, one one did not disclose the last concerns with us. Really unfair and unethical behavior from both reviewer and editor.
Only few comments did actually improved the manuscript, the rest was really "unexpert" comments.
Another reviewer had still one comment and we answered to it by email to the editor (who never answered in that regard).
We got rejected without actually knowing why since one of the reviewer did not disclose his/her concerns with us.
The handling of the manuscript was really poor and unethical. Further we satisfied 3 out of 4 reviewers, one one did not disclose the last concerns with us. Really unfair and unethical behavior from both reviewer and editor.
Only few comments did actually improved the manuscript, the rest was really "unexpert" comments.
5.7 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
The review process in the beginning at Nature Communications was acceptable, though the timeline was quite long, and we found the quality of reviewers to be mixed. Our manuscript was evaluated by four reviewers. Reviewers #1 and #2 were neutral, while Reviewers #3 and #4 provided positive feedback. After addressing their comments with new fitting data and additional experiments, Reviewer #1 and #4 accepted the manuscript, but Reviewers #2 and #3 raised concerns about certain fitting results. We responded thoroughly, and while Reviewer #2 was satisfied, Reviewer #3 remained unconvinced. Reviewer #3 appeared biased, as our XPS fitting method differed from his own work; he cited two of his publications, suggesting a lack of objectivity and a shift in stance from his initial positive feedback.
The editor ultimately decided to reject the paper, despite three reviewers being in favor. This decision felt imbalanced, as the editor leaned heavily on Reviewer #3’s opinion, discounting the other three reviewers. We filed an appeal, but unfortunately, it took two months to receive a response, and after almost a year in the review process, the novelty of our work risked becoming outdated.
Following the appeal, our manuscript went to external review. It took another month to secure a reviewer, who then submitted feedback on the same day they were assigned!!!. This new Reviewer #5’s comments were cursory, agreeing with Reviewer #3 and providing three points. Firstly, they compared our work with two previous studies, but the comparison lacked depth and misinterpreted both our manuscript and the prior work. Secondly, the reviewer was unable to distinguish between data with and without iR compensation, leading to unfounded claims of contradiction. Finally, they expressed doubts about our Raman spectra explanation, despite it being well-supported by references and additional experiments.
This experience was quite disappointing, leaving us disheartened by the apparent lack of expertise shown by both the editor and reviewers at the journal.
It’s possible that our lack of prior publications in Nature Communications may have influenced the fairness of the editor and reviewers in handling our submission.
The editor ultimately decided to reject the paper, despite three reviewers being in favor. This decision felt imbalanced, as the editor leaned heavily on Reviewer #3’s opinion, discounting the other three reviewers. We filed an appeal, but unfortunately, it took two months to receive a response, and after almost a year in the review process, the novelty of our work risked becoming outdated.
Following the appeal, our manuscript went to external review. It took another month to secure a reviewer, who then submitted feedback on the same day they were assigned!!!. This new Reviewer #5’s comments were cursory, agreeing with Reviewer #3 and providing three points. Firstly, they compared our work with two previous studies, but the comparison lacked depth and misinterpreted both our manuscript and the prior work. Secondly, the reviewer was unable to distinguish between data with and without iR compensation, leading to unfounded claims of contradiction. Finally, they expressed doubts about our Raman spectra explanation, despite it being well-supported by references and additional experiments.
This experience was quite disappointing, leaving us disheartened by the apparent lack of expertise shown by both the editor and reviewers at the journal.
It’s possible that our lack of prior publications in Nature Communications may have influenced the fairness of the editor and reviewers in handling our submission.
0.7 weeks
0.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2024
7.7 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2024
Motivation:
As expected, the revision process for Nature Communications was long. However, the reviews were of high quality overall, and our manuscript improved during the revision process.
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
7.4 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2024
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2024
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
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