Reviews for "Scientific Reports"

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
Scientific Reports Drawn back before first editorial decision after 125 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.
Scientific Reports 29.0
weeks
30.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
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.
Scientific Reports 10.0
weeks
13.5
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Scientific Reports 5.0
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
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.

Scientific Reports 16.1
weeks
16.1
weeks
n/a 5 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: Very slow process, low quality external reviews, decision of editor based on wrong assumptions
Scientific Reports 25.9
weeks
35.7
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2019
Scientific Reports 10.8
weeks
10.8
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2021
Scientific Reports 32.9
weeks
35.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
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.
Scientific Reports 6.0
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: I believe that the reviewers’ suggestions were very helpful in improving
the manuscript quality, especially in the results section. A better description of results and discussion sections has really improved the overall understanding of the article.
Scientific Reports 9.1
weeks
16.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 5.7
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 34.6
weeks
39.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 8.1
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: Reviewer 1 seems to not have been aware of the journal's article structure (introduction, results, discussion, methods), and commented to have missed a section that was included with the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 had many good suggestions that will strengthen the manuscript when submitted elsewere.

the manuscript was transferred from NHB, but the transfer was not as smooth as promised, with many changes necessary to fit the NHB manuscript to the SR format.
Scientific Reports 45.1
weeks
49.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: It took >10 months for the first reviewer reports to arrive, which is the longest duration from submission to first reviewer feedback out of >10 journals we recently published in.​ If the manuscript had been of above average length it might be understandable that the review process takes longer, but it was in fact quite short (5400 words).​
Scientific Reports 10.0
weeks
24.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: The reviewers' reports were very interesting and helped us improve the manuscript.
However, the review process between our resubmission and the outcome notification was extremely long: 3 months and 12 days.
Scientific Reports 8.4
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 7.3
weeks
23.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: None of the reviews raised any serious challenges to the research and the writeup of the ms. At the end of the day, after we had, in our judgment, thoroughly addressed all the reviewer's points, none of our rebuttals were addressed but the editor had a colleague on the editorial board review it and this editor, who was obviously ignorant of the domain, recommended rejection. What was particularly galling was that the action editor provided no opportunity to address this last review. All in all, it was the worst and most caprisious editorial experience I've had or witnessed (I myself have been an editor) in my professional life.
Scientific Reports Drawn back before first editorial decision after 71 days Drawn back 2020
Motivation: It is easy for your manuscript to be lost in this journal. They have updated their submission system which do not allow you to track your manuscript. Besides, it is common that you will struggle in selecting appropriate handling editor, and on many occasions will not accept your manuscript and will be going in circles.
Scientific Reports n/a n/a 251.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Scientific Reports 21.6
weeks
24.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: It took so much time before receiving the first decision. The status of the article is not available for the authors. This is so stressful. Then, I asked the status several times. The answers from the office were not so slow as the processing for review.
Scientific Reports 6.1
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: One reviewer was very thorough and caught some small inconsistencies and even requested some new material (a little bit tangential to the work) to be added. But, we considered his comments very appropriate and definitely contributed to the final paper. The second reviewer made a very superficial reading of the text, mostly commenting on the aesthetics of the text.
Scientific Reports 8.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Scientific Reports 19.5
weeks
21.5
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Scientific Reports 7.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 20.9
weeks
32.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Extremely long and frustrating processing time. The article went through several rounds of revision and would get kicked back by quality check for different things that weren't identified in previous rounds, each time taking a week to go through another quality check. It took over a month to find an editor for the article and one was identified only after I reached out to the journal to figure out why the manuscript hadn't moved and suggested more potential editors. The length of the review stage was on par with other journals, but the manuscript sat in Decision Started status for over a month. I got no response to my inquiries during this time. It took ~5 months to get the first review back, which is significantly longer than any other journal that I've used. On a positive note, the reviewer comments were thorough and did improve the manuscript. Subsequent review rounds did not take as long individually, but the manuscript spent over 8 months under review (not including time spent working on revisions).
Scientific Reports 7.1
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 22.4
weeks
35.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Handling was extremely poor, with long times to allocate reviewers and for review. Manuscript was initially rejected, despite meeting the journal’s publication criteria; an appeal was successful. Review of the revised manuscript took 3 months.
Scientific Reports 3.1
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Scientific Reports 15.6
weeks
15.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: The reviewers' comments suggest that reviewers didn't read the article thoroughly, and possibly skipped the whole Supplementary Information file.
Scientific Reports 4.4
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: We have had a mostly positive experience submitting to Scientific Reports, considering the short initial review process and the subsequent revisions. The only downside is how picky the journal is with regards to the "Quality Check" as we had to resubmit several times following the first round of revision due to files going missing from the system in the process and one file not being noticed by the editorial staff (not very professional). But an overall speedy and hassle-free process.
Scientific Reports 11.9
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Scientific Reports 4.3
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: For an open access journal, the speed and quality of review was satisfactory to me.
I was driven to submit to Sci Rep because the work (lab-on-a-chip) we wanted to publish was deemed not suited for Lab on a Chip journal! We were recommended RSC Advances.

We chose Sci Rep over other alternatives because the review is not centered around impact but validity of results. We are confident of the positive impact of our work and did not need further validation.
Scientific Reports 5.7
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Although it was rejection but reviewers understood the work and provides the limitations and proper reason (after in-depth review) that why the work was not suitable for publication in Scientific Reports.
Scientific Reports 8.7
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Quite long but constructive review process. Editors and reviewers were understood the work properly and provide important feedbacks about the work. The final decision after three review rounds was accept.
Scientific Reports 17.0
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: It took a very long time to be rejected. One reviewer was quite insulting in the use of his language. It would have been better had the editor sent it out again for a more neutral response.
Scientific Reports 6.7
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Overall, the process was relatively quick and painless. One reviewer gave constructive criticism that improved the paper somewhat. The other review, while favourable, was very summaric and did not suggest any changes. Despite the rapid handling of the manuscript, there was still some room for speeding up the process since the revised manuscript curiously sat with the editor for 3 weeks, without being sent out for a second round of peer-review, and without any additional comments or edits being requested by the editor.
Scientific Reports 9.1
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: I have never experienced the similar problem elsewhere through my > 20 years career. Being rejected even twice after the dubious review and editorial decision, I doubt if some editorial board members have sufficient competence to handle manuscripts and reviewer comments properly.
Scientific Reports 15.4
weeks
32.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The first reviewing time was extreamly long, than, after sending back the revised manuscript, 2 of the 3 original reviewers did not participate any longer in the reviewing process and a new reviewer joined, making the reviwing process even more longer. The editorial handling was quiet fast though.
Scientific Reports 13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: It's definitely not a fast journal, first round took more than 2 months and the second round around 3 weeks. The reviewer comments are not really helpful and did not improved the final paper much. Overall, I think this is a slightly higher than average journal with long handling time and not-so-efficient editors.
Scientific Reports 5.6
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: One of the two reviewers formulated useful, minor suggestions, while the comments of the other reviewer were confusing and sometimes completely incomprehensible and in very poor English.