Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The journal held a manuscript for four months without providing status updates. Only after author-initiated inquiries was a desk rejection issued—without ever sending the paper out for external peer review. The primary reason cited for rejection was a minor style/terminology preference that could have been resolved in a 10-minute minor revision, alongside a generic comment to update the literature review without providing specific missing references or reviewer reports. Holding an unreviewed paper for 120 days to issue a desk rejection based on copyediting preferences reflects severe processing bottlenecks. Authors looking for a timely or substantive review pipeline should look elsewhere.
Motivation:
The rejection was swift, that was good, not sending an email is however not ideal
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 51.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
We are very disappointed about our experience with submitting to EAAI. I am not surprised that most of the reviews are negative. Unfortunately, we didn't even get there as the others. The editor was not able to make its first decision within almost two months. I thought that there are no more serious journals that are not able to manage their decisions in reasonable time. We have never experienced anything like that before and hope will never again.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 60.8 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
My experience with the review process was disappointing, primarily because of the length of the process and the lack of clear communication. I submitted the manuscript in January 2026, and 2 reviews were received by August 2026. After that, the editor sought an additional reviewer, but no third reviewer was secured over by October 2026, after which I decided to withdraw my manuscript.
During this period, I made repeated attempts to obtain clarification about the manuscript's status, and the expected timeframe. These attempts did not result in a substantive response or a clear indication of when a decision could be expected. The communication with editorial office was quite frustrating. I wrote to EIC, but he did not reply. I tried to find out who the handling editor was, but the editorial office refused to reveal this. After 10 months, I withdrew the manuscript, after which the journal subsequently issued a rejection (rather strange decision as I was the one who withdrew it).
I am aware that securing suitable reviewers can be difficult and that editors may reasonably seek additional opinions. However, my frustration grew from the inadequate and unprofessional communication. More timely editorial assessment and more transparent communication about delays would have made this a considerably better experience.
During this period, I made repeated attempts to obtain clarification about the manuscript's status, and the expected timeframe. These attempts did not result in a substantive response or a clear indication of when a decision could be expected. The communication with editorial office was quite frustrating. I wrote to EIC, but he did not reply. I tried to find out who the handling editor was, but the editorial office refused to reveal this. After 10 months, I withdrew the manuscript, after which the journal subsequently issued a rejection (rather strange decision as I was the one who withdrew it).
I am aware that securing suitable reviewers can be difficult and that editors may reasonably seek additional opinions. However, my frustration grew from the inadequate and unprofessional communication. More timely editorial assessment and more transparent communication about delays would have made this a considerably better experience.
Motivation:
Extremely inefficient editorial workflow. The manuscript was held for a full month only to receive a standard "out of scope" rejection. An initial scope screening is a basic desk assessment that should take no more than a few days. Holding a paper for weeks without sending it to peer review, only to reject it on scope, show a lack of consideration for the authors' time and significantly delays the research dissemination cycle. Authors looking for a timely and professional editorial process should be aware of these delays.
Motivation:
One of the reviewer reports (the negative one, the other one was suggesting a revision) was clearly generated by an LLM. I complained to the editors stating that I had not authorized the reviewers to share my manuscript with LLMs. The editors and the SAGE ethics team told me that they were going to investigate the issue. I made multiple inquiries to be informed about the results of this investigation, but I did not receive any response.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 0.0 days
Drawn back
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 2.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The reviews were well written, useful and helped improve the manuscript. The journal handled the process quickly and smoothly.
Motivation:
It took over one year to get the first round of review comments. The editorial process was so slow. Even the comments did not require a significant update in the manuscript. It was just that the review process took a lot of time, which is not beneficial for a young scientist's career.
Motivation:
The editor was clear in the reasons provided for the rejection and showed they read the paper. Moreover, the fast decision time was also appreciated
Motivation:
Suggested transfer to sister journals Advanced Materials Interfaces, Surface and Interface Analysis, physica status solidi (RRL) Rapid Research Letters or Advanced Physics Research
Motivation:
Both reviewers said that my article is well written and correct.
They proposed nothing to modify or change.
They just simply rejected it because they thought that it is not important result.
It was clear from the abstract what my article is about. If the content is not interesting, then it should have been desk rejected.
This is kind of a joke, that a well written correct article gets rejected after long peer review.
They proposed nothing to modify or change.
They just simply rejected it because they thought that it is not important result.
It was clear from the abstract what my article is about. If the content is not interesting, then it should have been desk rejected.
This is kind of a joke, that a well written correct article gets rejected after long peer review.
Motivation:
The editors read the manuscript and provided the comments. They appreciated the work with its importance in application fields but rejection was made considering the broad readership and not enough substantial advances for the topic considering the multidisiplinary readership of Nature communications.
Offered transfer to another nature portfolio journal (Communications Materials).
Offered transfer to another nature portfolio journal (Communications Materials).
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0.0 / 5.0
1.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments focused solely on the format of our review paper.
6.3 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5.0 / 5.0
5.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewer comments are very constructive and clear. There are many comments from each reviewer, but they definitely improved the paper a lot. The editorial process is remarkably fast and efficient.
1.0 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0.0 / 5.0
0.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
EIC requested manuscript be reduced to a Technical Note for expedited Review. After reformulation, the submitted Technical Note was reviewed by a single assistant Editor who confessed ignorance of the content, yet issued a verdict to "reject without resubmit". EIC and assistants need to communicate and stop wasting authors' time. Claimed journal rejection rates should be judged with skepticism.
4.3 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3.0 / 5.0
0.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
My experience with the editorial handling was very poor. The manuscript was initially submitted on 26 December 2025 and went through two revision rounds. The second revision was submitted on 18 May 2026 and addressed only four remaining focused comments.
After this revision, the manuscript remained under review for several months without a clear editorial timeline. Multiple attempts were made by both the corresponding author and the supervisor to obtain information from the journal. A formal complaint was subsequently submitted to Springer Nature and escalated to the editorial team. Only after this escalation were we informed that a previous reviewer had been invited again and had apparently not yet accepted the invitation.
After almost nine months from the original submission, and without a reliable timeline for completion of the review process, we decided to withdraw the manuscript on 22 September 2026.
The main problem was not the scientific review itself, but the prolonged editorial handling and lack of communication. Based on this experience, I would not submit to this journal again.
After this revision, the manuscript remained under review for several months without a clear editorial timeline. Multiple attempts were made by both the corresponding author and the supervisor to obtain information from the journal. A formal complaint was subsequently submitted to Springer Nature and escalated to the editorial team. Only after this escalation were we informed that a previous reviewer had been invited again and had apparently not yet accepted the invitation.
After almost nine months from the original submission, and without a reliable timeline for completion of the review process, we decided to withdraw the manuscript on 22 September 2026.
The main problem was not the scientific review itself, but the prolonged editorial handling and lack of communication. Based on this experience, I would not submit to this journal again.
27.1 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0.0 / 5.0
0.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
The editor’s decision was very prompt (within two days), which we greatly appreciate.
Motivation:
Very slow and unresponsive communication. Apparently, this journal is struggling with the volume of submissions - they needed 2 months and provided one line feedback that although the topic was interesting, it did not fit the scope (which was a debatable...)
Please be prepared for longer than usual waiting time if you submit and rejection after 2 months!
Please be prepared for longer than usual waiting time if you submit and rejection after 2 months!
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript on 8 May 2026. On 11 August, after 95 days, the coordinating editor requested straightforward reference and formatting corrections before external review. No substantive scientific revisions were requested. I submitted the corrected manuscript and a point-by-point response the following day, on 12 August.
An email inquiring about the status of the review sent on 9 September remained unanswered as of 6 October. The manuscript remained at “Editor Assigned” until the status changed to “Editor Invited,” dated 5 October.
On 6 October, nearly five months after the original submission and almost eight weeks after resubmission, I requested withdrawal. At that point, external peer review had not been confirmed, and I had received no explanation of the delay. Withdrawal confirmation is pending at the time of writing.
The requested corrections were clearly specified and straightforward to implement. However, the prolonged editorial processing and lack of a response to my status inquiry led me to seek another journal.
An email inquiring about the status of the review sent on 9 September remained unanswered as of 6 October. The manuscript remained at “Editor Assigned” until the status changed to “Editor Invited,” dated 5 October.
On 6 October, nearly five months after the original submission and almost eight weeks after resubmission, I requested withdrawal. At that point, external peer review had not been confirmed, and I had received no explanation of the delay. Withdrawal confirmation is pending at the time of writing.
The requested corrections were clearly specified and straightforward to implement. However, the prolonged editorial processing and lack of a response to my status inquiry led me to seek another journal.
10.0 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
The lengthy peer-review process was balanced by the high calibre of the selected reviewers, who are experts in the field.
Motivation:
The process was faster than I expected.
Submit: May 3
All reviewers assigned: May 18
Got the review reports: June 6
Major Revise then resubmit: Aug 8
Review complete: Sep 7
Editor informed all the reviewers accept: Sep 9
Minor revise resubmit: Sep 15
Accept decision: Oct 5
Grateful that the editor and the reviewers handled it smoothly.
Submit: May 3
All reviewers assigned: May 18
Got the review reports: June 6
Major Revise then resubmit: Aug 8
Review complete: Sep 7
Editor informed all the reviewers accept: Sep 9
Minor revise resubmit: Sep 15
Accept decision: Oct 5
Grateful that the editor and the reviewers handled it smoothly.
Motivation:
the overall process was quite professional. the problems occured because of some of the reviewers. one was revoked (disappeared after the first round), and the other one sent the wrong report and thus dismissed. as a result, they were replaced by new ones, and this cost me some additional time. still, the editor was able to organize everything at the end.
Motivation:
The entire process took almost 150 days but nearly 2/3 of the time the manuscript was with the editor either before peer review or after. The editor was not very efficient.