Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The editor seemed to have had little bagage to either select appropriate reviewers, or evaluate the quality of the reviews. The whole process took ages (of which nearly a month just to decide whether to send out for review). Over a month after formally going into review a former colleague of mine (one with whom I have published previously) was asked to review the manuscript. One single Google action by the editor would have made it clear that this is not an appropriate request given our previous ties. It seems to me that the only reason my colleague got this request was because he has a study in revision with Nature Communications so that his name was in their system. Naturally he reclined and apparently a different reviewer was invited. The reviews I ended up getting were of poor quality, attacking points that were very explicitly controlled for in the study. I did not read a single point of valid criticism by any of the reviewers. I've decided taking my business elsewhere, I will not be submitting with Nature Communications again, the turnaround time for a high impact journal is huge (even though they pride themselves on being fast), and the editor does not seem up to speed in our field (Cognitive Neuroscience).
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
2016
Motivation: Long turnaround, there was a long wait period until it was sent for review. Although the manuscript advertised short review times, it took a total of 3 months. One of the reviewers also rejected with blank statements of non-novelty without providing evidence/citations. Very frustrating.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: The decision making was too slow, and their comments were nothing but useless one.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: The submission system is very author-friendly, and the rejection at least was fast and (nearly) painless.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2012
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
8.6 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The review process took so long although the paper was a short communication type. The editor made a decision based on just one of the three reviewers' views and opinions that were not supported by any reference. I think the editors might want to consider more carefully the obvious "conflict of interest" raised by some reviewers before making the final decision.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: Rejected immediately due to not broad enough appeal, but the process was quick so we didn't have to wait to long. Offered the option to transfer our paper to another journal within the Nature Publishing Group (Scientific Reports). Overall a smooth and efficient system, though the outcome was not what we hoped.
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: Delay too long in obtaining the decision of editors
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
7.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: Three high-quality reviews (a bit delayed over christmas).
Friendly and responsive reviewer.
13.0 weeks
17.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2015
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: immediate rejection that took them 25 days!
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
8.7 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2015
6.5 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The review process was fair and had high scientific quality, I would recommend this journal to others. However I have to say that the online manuscript tracking system is a bit clumsy and doesn't provide much information.