Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.3 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2024
Motivation: We were very satisfied with the entire submission process as well as with our editor and reviewers. All of them were competent in our field. Their suggestions were very helpful and significantly improved the quality of our paper. The entire process was also quick and without any delays.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 51.0 days
Drawn back
2024
Motivation: After waiting for more than 50 days for the first initial technical check we decided finally to withdraw our manuscript from Scientific Reports.
9.6 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2023
Motivation: This journal has a very broad range of subjects and has numerous editors. Including the names of editors relevant to your field in your cover letter address or potential reviewers may make the process go more smoothly. In my case, I was happy to have an editor assigned to a well-known researcher in my field whose name I included in my cover letter.
I included five potential reviewers in my cover letter, but it still seems difficult to find a second reviewer, so you may want to provide more potential reviewers.
About two months after the submission, I had yet to receive a response, so I emailed the journal, and they replied that they would prompt the one reviewer whose deadline had passed. The journal’s website states that they aim to make a first decision within 45 days, so if they miss that, you should try emailing them to check on the status.
Initially, I had added a sub-title colon “:” to the title, but the editor indicated that due to accessibility concerns, so it would be safer to follow that.
17.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2023
Motivation: We had a problem with the editor in charge not responding in the first three months after submission. We contacted the editor-in-chief and he asked the associate editor to take care of our paper. The Associated Editor's commitment far exceeded our expectations. As the responsible editor still did not respond, the Associated Editor took over the peer review process and we finally received the approval decision.
26.0 weeks
29.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2023
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 184.0 days
Drawn back
2023
Motivation: This has been the worst journal I dealt with.
We wait for 45 days, than for 45 working days and still nothing. Then we wrote to the office and they explained they are in a search for a senior editor, since no one was willing to handle our paper. Then the editor was finally found. From the end of April until the beginning of August, they could not find 2 reviewers. Then we drew back the paper.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 175.0 days
Drawn back
2023
Motivation: Very long time before first response from editor. In fact, never received a response based on the content.
12.9 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2023
Motivation: Manuscript was handled very well. It took a while before an editor was assigned, but once it got assigned, we received the review reports rather fast, they were useful to improve the manuscript (it did not require heavy work as they were minor comments in general). After 1 round we resubmitted and 3 reviewers (2 from before and 1 new) checked the manuscript and accept for publication was the final decision. No further changes were asked.
2.6 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
2023
6.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2023
Motivation: First review round needed 6.4 weeks. This is not so short but I expected longer time would be required for this round. The comments from reviewers are good and contribute to improve my manuscript. Second review round needed 2 weeks and this is acceptable. New submission system they introduced is helpful. Some information of the reviewing progress can be obtained from the system.
47.7 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
0
Rejected
2022
Motivation: It took 11 months for peer review. I inquired three times during that time. The reply was always just an apology; I thought if it was a rejection, they should reject it quickly so I could move on.
5.3 weeks
24.3 weeks
n/a
6 reports
3
0
Rejected
2022
Motivation: We resubmitted our revised manuscript with comments to the five reviewers. Then, the handling editor lost communication. The reason was not disclosed. The second round was then abandoned for about six months. I contacted the editorial support team numerous times, but all they said was that the handling editor was still unresponsive. Eventually, the handling editor was changed, and the manuscript was rejected. We wasted our time. TWe will never submit our manuscript to this journal again.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
2022
Motivation: The reviewers are not professional in my field.
17.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The reviewers and chief editor were great. I really appreciate their hard work.
10.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2022
22.9 weeks
28.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
2022
Motivation: Extremely long process to assign the paper to the reviewers . Reviewers and editor were expert in the field and almost every suggestion improved the overall quality if the paper.
15.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Accepted
2022
Motivation: The review process took too much time relative to the simplicity of revisions being suggested. There was also a point where the Journal had to find a new editorial board member to handle our manuscript. The dates received, accepted and published appearing in the paper make it appear that the struggle to keep up with the peer review process was on us authors when, in fact, much of the covered period of time is mostly us waiting for the Journal to relay reviewer feedback and editorial decision.
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Drawn back
2021
3.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2022
Motivation: The experience with this journal is very positive. The process was very fast. The reviews gave their reports in ten days. The slowest part was the editorial decision after the major. We only had one round. If I had a question, they answered my questions very fast.The reviewers asked for more experiments and more literature review that improved a lot my paper. I am satisfied with this journal. I will submit new papers again for sure.
15.4 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2022
Motivation: The most surprising thing was that the journal needed 1 month to assign the paper to an editor, that we never know who she/he was. Then, although the information on the website read as "review received" the editorial decision was not made until one month later.
19.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
1
1
Rejected
2022
Motivation: I appreciate the coordinator and handling process in general. However I really disappoint with revieweres response. Out of four reviewers. There is only one reviewer who seem read through my article and provide rational and constructive feedback. The other two seem not read and suggest what indeed written in the article then they provide mainly linguistic problem. However, the most painful reviewer seem only repeatedly negative 'opinion' without any specific learning points.
5.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
2022
Motivation: A so called "Quality Check stage" was ridiculously long, bizarre, and inept. Apparently, it was done at a very remote location because it took several days for the editorial support to respond to the amended versions. It took about two weeks before our manuscript has finally reached the editor. The same happened after reviews of the revision.
We were lucky with one of the reviewers, whose comments were knowledgeable and professional. We were not that lucky with the second reviewer, which rigorously focused on minor things like abbreviations, references formatting, grammatical terms etc. rather than on a subject matter of the manuscript. He/she was the reason for the second revision: few commas were missing, and few abbreviations were not consistent. We think handling editor should have been more decisive or certain before requesting the second insignificant revision. Overall, those were the factors that affected our scores here, at SciRev. It is not the first time we've been having quite a gloomy experience with the Scientific Reports: several years ago, our manuscript was in submission there for more than six months until we finally withdraw it due to delay. It turned out one reviewer approved it for publication, and they've been waiting for the second one to respond. Could have found another reviewer instead.
7.0 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The revision process went very smooth and the editors were eager to accept our request for the extension. It was however reasonable due to the number of requested changes and some problems related to pandemics which impeded our accessibility.

The reviewers were insightful and raised many important questions that directed us in improving the paper. The reviewers were able to
- demonstrate they know the topic from a psychological and medical perspective
- indicate several formal/technical inconsistencies (some of them could have been annoying and therefore we are thankful for their patience and understanding)
- go through our database and make useful suggestions on data interpretation
- encourage us to give more information on the procedure (the manuscript is more transparent)

We slightly disagreed with a few suggestions but, on the whole, their work is much appreciated.

28.2 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The reviewing and editorial process was very slow. I sent an corresponding email 3 times without respond. I have to contact the customer suport for their help, which thay told me there is some issue about the editorial process that make the decision took more than 6 months. In general, this is a good journal and the reviewers' comments were good, but the editorial process was too slow (maybe due to COVID?).
4.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The reviewers suggested relevant and straightforward changes. The editor was able to accept the revised manuscript without sending to reviewers again. The only slow step was going from submission to having an editor assigned (few weeks), but after that it proceeded quickly.
9.9 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: We had to revise our paper two times before it was accepted. First, we received two reviews. After revising the manuscript, it was accepted by one but declined by the other reviewer. The editor asked a third person to review the manuscript who also suggested to accept it. The editor, therefore, gave us a second opportunity to revise the manuscript. We did and after this it was accepted, even though one reviewer still wasn't completelly convinced by the paper. The second review process was quite long, but when we asked the editorial staff we always received prompt and helpful answers.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 112.0 days
Drawn back
2021
Motivation: I did not hear anything from Scientific Reports after 4 months since the initial submission. Upon contacting the journal, I found that they still had not assigned even an editor to handle the manuscript - and according to them, all of their senior editors were busy at the moment.

Since I am not working on any exotic field, lack of professionalism is the only plausible reason for not finding an editor to handle the peer-review process.

Therefore, after 4 lost months my colleagues and I opted to withdraw our manuscript - evidently, we will never submit anything to Scientific Reports or review for this journal again.
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
2021
4.9 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2021
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 60.0 days
Drawn back
2020
Motivation: Extremely slow processing time, I would not recommend publishing in this journal.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation: We are regretfully unable to process your submission because your manuscript does not fall within the scope of this publication.
3.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2021
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 125.0 days
Drawn back
2021
Motivation: My experience with this Journal was horrible. It took them almost 2 months to find an editor to handle my paper and 2 more months to invited reviewers that did not accept to review the paper. I would strongly suggest not submit to this Journal if you value your time and research.
29.0 weeks
30.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
3
Accepted
2021
Motivation: Six months for an initial review round is quite long, the editor was extremely hands-off (e.g. did not add a single word of text beyond generic responses), and we only received one review, which the online portal said was submitted in May (we received it in August as they were waiting for additional reviews). The reviewer was an expert in the field and added considerably to the manuscript, which made the process worthwhile. Still, I will likely submit to one of the other open-access journals next time.
10.0 weeks
13.5 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
2021
5.0 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The Editor -an established expert in the field- handled the manuscript promptly and very well, sending it to an intellectual giant in the field. The reviews were of very high quality and the comments straightforward to address.
It was a pleasure to have such a smooth and high-quality review process.

16.1 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
5 reports
1
0
Rejected
2021
Motivation: Very slow process, low quality external reviews, decision of editor based on wrong assumptions
25.9 weeks
35.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
0
Accepted
2019
10.8 weeks
10.8 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
2021
32.9 weeks
35.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Accepted
2021
Motivation: It took the journal 4 months to find a handling editor, and then it took another 2 months to find reviewers. The reviews I got back consisted of Reviewer 1 contributing primarily a copy edit job of grammatical and sentence restructuring instead of actual feedback on the content in the MS and Reviewer 2 asking for the inclusion of four references, three of which were from the same working group along with one other request for revision of the title and abstract.