Reviews for "Nature Communications"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
1.6
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2020
n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
3.1
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: NA
n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: Very long for an editorial rejection.
8.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: We asked the editor in the cover letter to find reviewers that would cover the 3 main components of our study. Instead, both reviewers focused on 1 of the 3 and completely ignored the others. Both reviewers provided no more than 10 lines of comments, in which it was clear that they missed key points of the manuscript. This was not noticed by the Editor.
n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: "It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. Such decisions are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers do not meet the criteria for publication in Nature Communications. These editorial judgements are based on such considerations 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 interesting work ..., I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings are sufficiently developed to justify publication in Nature Communications.

Although we cannot offer to publish your manuscript, I suggest that you consider transferring your manuscript to our sister journal, <i>Communications Biology</i>, a selective open-access Nature Research title led by an in-house editorial team that publishes research bringing new insight into a focused area of biology ."
5.0
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: We originally submitted to Nature Ecology and Evolution and it was desk-rejected after ~10 days with the option to transfer to Nature Communications. The original turn around time (5 weeks) was very reasonable. The reviewers requested substantial edits and the editor gave us 3-6 months to resubmit. This was also at the beginning of COVID19 so we took almost the whole time to complete the revision. Afterward, the second decision time (~7 weeks) was very reasonable considering the current state of the world. The editor gave us provisional acceptance pending addressing the reviewer's minor requests and formatting for the journal. Overall, a great experience, but I still don't think it's worth the inordinately high charges.
n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
9.1
weeks
24.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: We were very disappointed with the editorial handling of our manuscript. Every step of the process took very long, and the choice of reviewers was problematic, as two out of the three reviewers were clearly no experts in the field. The production process after acceptance was bad as well, as they've made lots of errors in text and formulas (and even changes to images!), which were definitely not present in the original manuscript. In my opinion, such an editorial handling is not acceptable, especially from a journal with professional full-time editors and horrendous publishing fees.
6.4
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: The submission process was very easy and the decision was quite rapid (<1 week).
5.6
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: 1st stage: I had waited 18 days for the editor to inform the external formal review.
2nd stage: Then after about 20 days, I received the decision letter of rejection and comments from two reviewers. The reviewers suggested the topic was not interesting enough and some other problems (though I think these were not).
I hope next time my work can get a higher recommendation.
n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: "In this case, while we do not question the validity of your ..., I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications." My feeling is that: In earth science, if you want to publish a paper on such journals, you have to choose topics with "large-scale stories" like Earthquakes, Global climate change, Deep mantle or Subduction geodynamics, or Induced earthquakes (the larger the better).
13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: It took the journal over three months to obtain the reviews. During that time the journal made no attempts to get in touch or keep us updated about the status of the submission.

Eventually we received three reviews. One reviewer raised "serious issues" by pointing out lack of certain analyses, which actually were already described in the text. Another review was very positive. The third review discussed some issues but felt rather neural. Yet, the editorial decision was still a rejection, which after such a long reviewing process made this experience feel like a complete waste of time.
n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
6.4
weeks
25.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: While the review process did help make the paper better in certain ways, the time from submission to acceptance took over 1 year. After the first round of revisions, we "lost" one of the reviewers so the editor picked up a 3rd reviewer who commented on how well we addressed the reviewer we lost, and then added more comments of their own - suggesting several additional experiments. I believe the editor could have played a better role here and either made a decision on how well we addressed the original reviewer comments, or reigned in the new 3rd reviewer and only allowed them to make comments without suggesting more experiments.
n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. Such decisions are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers do not meet the criteria for publication in Nature Communications. These editorial judgments are based on such considerations 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 your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications.
7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: It took 71 days to reach a decision.
n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
5.9
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
n/a n/a 23.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Honestly, we believed that our contribution would be a good fit for Nature Communications. During our work, we have found several papers that had "similar" contribution and impact. Anyway, we accepted the suggestion of transferring the manuscript for Scientific Reports, and afterward, they ended up accepting it.
4.9
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: I only received the standard desk-rejection email. .
n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: When you see other articles dealing with related topic" being "sufficiently striking advance to justify publication, you wonder on the biased editorial comments; they (editorial board) obviously didn't have time to come across the content.
n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Rather fast bounce-back with a generic rejection e-mail.
n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: I am very disappointed with the overworked Editors and the lousy Editorial standards at this moneymaking journal. A previous submission here was also immediately rejected but nevertheless published in a very good journal with great referee comments. The insular comment in the decision letter on only one aspect of our multifaceted manuscript clearly showed that the busy Editor had not even properly read the paper a full time. Or else she understood just what she commented on, because you got to have special skills to miss everything else in the title, abstract and results. I am really amused by some of the commentaries on "trending" topics by whom they deem to be "experts" in my field. It clearly shows their lack of understanding of my field.
7.1
weeks
15.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: After the minor revision was submitted, it took six weeks.
I do not know why it took so long time to evalucate our minor revisions.
n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
8.0
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: We were terribly frustrated by the slow pace of the editorial and production staff at Nature Communications during the entire publishing process. You'd expect better service considering their exorbitant publishing fee.
4.4
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: One reviewer suggested additional genetic experiments, so we had to grow plants (for 16 weeks) and report the results. The manuscript definitively improved after revision. After resubmision the editorial decision was made in 40 days. The editor was professional, understanding and polite.
n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: "In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work on [topic], I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: The overworked Editor had clearly not either carefully read or understood the manuscript. The rejection letter stated that the manuscript addresses something. However, in reality it addresses something quite different. I don't think is a result of bad writing because I had the manuscript read by scientists from other disciplines and they said that the title, introduction, results and abstract would be enjoyed even by science undergrads. An earlier manuscript of mine rejected here in 3 days but was published at a very prestigious journal, with great reviews. It is not an accident that the overall rating of this journal is ranked at 3.1/5, which is very bad compared to its peer Science Advances. And of course as everyone has stated, there is a lot of delay even for immediate rejections.
0.9
weeks
0.9
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2016
n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
6.3
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The review process was slow, but ultimately we got two good reviews that very much improved the final paper. Unfortunately the total length of handling time makes Nature Communications difficult to recommend, in addition the publication fee is astronomical.