Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
9 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 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 reports
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.
I do not know why it took so long time to evalucate our minor revisions.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
8.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
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 reports
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 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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
12 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 reports
Rejected
2016
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
6.3 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
4.7 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
Swift desk-reject.
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
18.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The review process was very long.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
6.7 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
9.6 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
"In this case, while we do not question the validity of [...], I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
4.1 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The review process was relatively quick and painless. However, it was made a little complicated by having an editor and sub-edit assigned on the other side of the world. This led to slow communications at times which made the process painfully tedious. The final editorial review was also quite tedious with literally 5 pages of editorial comments which needed to be addressed. Most of these were standard requests for stylistic editing which did not necessarily apply, but we were given the impression they needed to be addressed nonetheless. In one case there was a request which was not clear and attempts to get clarification took almost 2 weeks. This was very frustrating at the point of acceptance, exacerbated by the time difference between authors and editorial staff.
Nonetheless, we found the process sufficiently thorough that we were able to produce a very high quality paper in the end.
Nonetheless, we found the process sufficiently thorough that we were able to produce a very high quality paper in the end.
13.0 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
The editor opens many tabs for editor's works. So mistake could occur easily. I think they are overworked.
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Process speed was normal. Reviews were useful but slightly aggressive.
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
Rather quick immediate rejection (12 days) but much longer than other nature journals.
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
6.4 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Since there was a contradiction between reviewers, we expected editors to solicit additional opinion about the manuscript from practicing scientists. They did not and eventually took a decision after discussing with other editorial colleagues.
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Our submission to this journal was essentially due to the "quick review process" highlighted on the website. However, it took more than 2 weeks for the manuscript to be assigned an editor as indicated by the online portal. While we were fine with that as well, the entire process from this point onwards was just frustrating. For the next 40 days, there was minimal response from the editorial team. We were informed two weeks before our rejection that they would update us if the paper went out for review and finally received our comments after a total of 62 days of review. While the editor apologized for the delay due to lack of reviewers, we were appalled by the language used by the reviewers to describe the study. It was unprofessional and outright rude. While failing to comment on our scientific output, the reviewer harped us for our language skills, was extremely biased towards the data, asked us to perform experiments which were already present in the manuscript and even cited a wrong reference when stating why our study was not interesting enough. The other reviewer provided interesting insights into the study and we appreciated their efforts. However, comments received from the first reviewer definitely impacted our opinion of the journal and their review process.
3.4 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Smooth and speedy process, and a responsive editor. I will certainly submit to Nature Comm again
7.3 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The reviewers raised important points that, once addressed, significantly improved the manuscript. However, the second round of revisions took too long. The first reviewer accepted to revise the manuscript one more time and then apparently vanished into thin air. The editor waited a long time before contacting a replacement reviewer. We had to contact the editor to get feed back. Also, the online manuscript tracking system is not at all informative as our manuscript had been "under consideration" the whole time and never changed status. We are happy with the outcome and appreciated the comments made by the reviewers, but found the overall process very long.
28.0 weeks
38.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The first round of reviews took an abnormally long time (28 weeks), and even then an incomplete set of reviews were sent. These review reports were good and helpful to improve the manuscript. Subsiquent rounds were less helpful.
The proofing process was very poorly done. The online proofing system was not very user friendly. There seems to be a major step between the online proof and as published. A major omission was made and a correction had to be made (by the journal). There are still typos in the final published version that were not in the submission.
The proofing process was very poorly done. The online proofing system was not very user friendly. There seems to be a major step between the online proof and as published. A major omission was made and a correction had to be made (by the journal). There are still typos in the final published version that were not in the submission.