Reviews for "Nature Communications"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Nature Communications 6.4
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Nature Communications 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).
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications 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).
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Nature Communications n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications 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.
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.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Nature Communications n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Nature Communications 5.9
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications 4.9
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
Nature Communications 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. .
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications 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."
Nature Communications n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications 0.9
weeks
0.9
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2016
Nature Communications n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Nature Communications 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.
Nature Communications 4.7
weeks
14.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2017
Nature Communications 7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: All three referees agreed that the manuscript was not interesting enough for their field...which is totally correct as the manuscript was written for a different field. We have no idea why an editor would send the manuscript to 3 referees from his own field instead of using referees from the target audience and the field we work in. However, our experience matches the experience from other research groups which submitted manuscripts to Nat. Comm. that were handled by the same editor and ended up with very bizarre peer review experiences. Accordingly, the submission experience with Nat. Comm. may be great for other groups ending up with different editors, but in our case, the experience was definitely subpar.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Nature Communications n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Swift desk-reject.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications 18.7
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: The review process was very long.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Nature Communications 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: My experience with Nature Communications was the worst I've had out of the 13 different journals I have published in. Initially, there was a delay in the review of our manuscript because they could not track down the third reviewer they selected. Then after waiting another month they still could not get the reviews so they sent us low-quality reviews. One simply said accept as is, the other literally stated they did not read the whole paper because they didn't like it. Our handling editor had no familiarity with the subject matter and was therefore unable to address the integrity and quality of these reviews or provide their own opinion. We then successfully appealed for a revised manuscript to be sent to a third reviewer. After almost 3 months, we received two more reviews from the two original reviewers, which contained almost the exact same responses. This was curious given that the sole request in our appeal was to send our paper to a new reviewer. But we decided not to pursue the issue further. Ultimately, we were failed by the handling editor, who should have done a better job at managing the chosen reviewers and inspecting their reviews for quality and potential bias before accepting them.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 23.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Nature Communications 6.7
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018