Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
15.7 weeks
47.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
12.9 weeks
19.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The initial review was pretty slow (took 3 months) but otherwise the manuscript was handled well. It has been much improved by now.
9.3 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The editor was very supportive of our submission and we received several updates on the review process, including explanations regarding delays. Unfortunately, the requests received by one of the reviewers were severely biased. Nevertheless, the extensive revision, in general, allowed us to improve the manuscript significantly.
To our surprise, compared to other journals, the editorial requests concerning the preparation of the manuscript for publication were rather extensive, i.e. adjustments that had to be performed by the authors, especially considering the journal's high APC.
To our surprise, compared to other journals, the editorial requests concerning the preparation of the manuscript for publication were rather extensive, i.e. adjustments that had to be performed by the authors, especially considering the journal's high APC.
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
We received three reviews. One was openly hostile and recommended rejection, one recommended acceptance, and the other minor revision. Editor ultimately decided the findings lacked novelty. Overall, the reviews were of very high quality, and we were able to address the comments/concerns and publish elsewhere.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
7.9 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The duration of review process takes much longer amid this pandemics when compare to the previous submission . However, the editor was very helpful and informative about the manuscript status. Whenever we have any questions, she responds promptly.
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Generic desk rejection after 2.6 weeks with their editorial team. It’s disappointing to have a our work sitting with this editor for such a long time and came back with a rejection. I think nature communication should have more savvy editorial staff to assess manuscripts. Among all of the publishers I’ve interacted with, this team is by far the worst experience.
6.9 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The speed is normal. But it is necessary to push the editor in every step. A day after the push-email, the comments came back. Reviewers are professional. After the revision according to the comments from the reviewers, we regretted to summit to Nat Com. It seems worthy to fit Nature Cell Biology or Molecular Cell.
7.0 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
After going through 2 revisions where each review process took almost a month, the paper was accepted. It took almost 8 months from the day the paper was submitted to the day the paper was accepted.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
fast generic desk rejection
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Generic desk-rejection.
1.6 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
3.1 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
NA
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Very long for an editorial rejection.
n/a
n/a
13 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 ."
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 reports
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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
9.1 weeks
24.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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 reports
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
6 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 reports
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.
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 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 reports
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.
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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
6.4 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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 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.
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 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
It took 71 days to reach a decision.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
5.9 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
23 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 reports
Rejected
2018
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
I only received the standard desk-rejection email. .
n/a
n/a
10 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.