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 22.7
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2018
Scientific Reports 4.3
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2018
Scientific Reports 22.1
weeks
40.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: The overall experiences with this journal are extremely negative.with over 10 months from start to finish.

Others have noted the quality check is infuriating, We got the manuscript bounced back many times which is odd considering we used the transfer service. In the end they were apologizing for not catching the things which required amending to comply with their formatting. The quality check guidelines were also not applied consistently between our first and re submission with different requests given for certain formatting,

The journal "lost" their handling editor at least four times. I tried to check but the number of times exceeds the events log on their website! Looking back it was farcical and would almost be humorous if we weren't actually trying to publish research.

The editor reports are a mixed bag with some useful comments from some reviewers but it is clear some reviewers are not actually an expert in the given field and are not able to critique technically. This results in them providing useful comments to figure legends etc, but missing the point in some instances and providing editorial comments as part of a technical comment.

The handling editor (editors? who knows how many we had in the end) don't appear to differentiate when they receive a block of text with comments the majority of which are focused on formatting).

Overall, very negative view of the journal. A nice idea but extremely poorly executed.
Scientific Reports 5.7
weeks
10.3
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: The work focused on the use of a disease model to predict the public health benefit of a disease intervention. The reviewers, while knowledgeable about virology, *both* stated in their reviewers they had no background in mathematical modeling, and seemed focused on more 'within-host' aspects. Thus, the claim that the work was not "technically sound in method and analysis" was quite infuriating.
Scientific Reports 17.6
weeks
23.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The whole process took more than I expected, starting with the overzealous quality check, which, in my case, asked me to explain details that were clearly already written in the manuscript, as per observed editorial policies. Apparently they will not consider this the submission date, but only when it got past this check stage. We had no detailed feedback from one reviewer and a sober review from the other reviewer, which helped to improve the text. After the simple requested changes were made, a long time elapsed before the acceptance letter was sent. Also of interest for researcher awaiting an editorial response, after the tracking system showed the "decision made" status, it took almost two weeks before the decision was revealed to the corresponding author.
Scientific Reports 9.3
weeks
17.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The first round of reviews was fast (4 weeks) and informative (2 reviews with relatively minor and technical issues). However, the revised manuscript was with the reviewers for 2 months without much update from the editor or the journal. I had to inquire 3 times for the updates.
Scientific Reports Drawn back before first editorial decision after 45 days Drawn back 2018
Motivation: The Journal was unable to assign an handling editor (from the Editorial Board) 45 days after the submission (the quality check took only 4 days), because, they said, the Journal has an "external" editorial board and editors reserves themselves the right to refuse to handle manuscripts.
Scientific Reports 4.9
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Quality check process also takes time. At least one week. Reviews were constructive and I agree with several points the reviewers made.
Scientific Reports 5.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: I found the online submission portal to be quite easy from a user perspective. Reviewer comments were constructive and some of the editorial board comments were too. We found the whole process was pretty clear- however the quality control steps took a very long time to complete.
Scientific Reports 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 5 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Editor's comments are vague. Some reviewers are not fair. We had given no chances to modify our paper. Really, we can write our paper with more detail.
Scientific Reports 8.1
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: I found the comments made by the reviewers helpful and it must be said that it improved my manuscript. However, I found the process time a bit long.
Scientific Reports 25.4
weeks
25.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: It took about two weeks for the editor to receive the first review, Five months later I enquired about the reason for the lack of progress. The reply was that the editor was still trying to obtain another review. One month after that the editor made a revise and resubmit decision based on the somewhat glowing review of Reviewer 1.Revised and resubmitted the next day and was accepted the day after that.
Scientific Reports 18.0
weeks
18.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: After two time revision my paper was accepted
Scientific Reports 12.9
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Scientific Reports 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Process as advertised. Quick, well informed reviewers and professional handling. We tried to give as much support as possible at the initial submission by suggesting several reviewers. We had the feeling that this helped a lot.
Scientific Reports 18.4
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The only main concern in the whole reviewing process was the time. It took a very long time to obtain the first reviewers comments, although from the comments we understand why. One of the reviewer was not fitted for this and only criticized on how it was premature to publish. The second reviewer and the editorial office performed valuable critics and allowed us to further improve the manuscript. The second revision was rather fast (16.1 weeks because we only submitted the revision after summer holidays) and was promptly accepted in two days. When errors occurred in the submission process, the notifications from the editorial office were prompt and eased the whole process.
Scientific Reports 8.1
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The actual review process was on time and the reviewer's comments actually improved the manuscript. However we experienced slow processing time before the manuscript was sent for review, and after the acceptance.
Scientific Reports 13.4
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The reviewing process was very slow.
Scientific Reports 6.6
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Scientific Reports 4.9
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Review process overall was quick and helpful, and led to an improved paper.
Scientific Reports 7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Scientific Reports 16.3
weeks
30.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The Editorial Board and few referees did excellent work for improving the manuscript. This journal is excellent and particularly the editorial board members.
Scientific Reports 18.4
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The only main concern in the whole reviewing process was the time. It took a very long time to obtain the first reviewers comments, although from the comments we understand why. One of the reviewer was not fitted for this and only criticized on how it was premature to publish. The second reviewer and the editorial office performed valuable critics and allowed us to further improve the manuscript. The second revision was rather fast (16.1 weeks because we only submitted the revision after summer holidays) and was promptly accepted in two days. When errors occurred in the submission process, the notifications from the editorial office were prompt and eased the whole process.
Scientific Reports 10.0
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: The experience with Scientific Reports was very mixed; I personally think that 10 weeks is a very long time for a first review;
2 reviewers gave genuinely constructive feedback, with which the manuscript was improved and published in a similarly good journal.
However, 1 reviewer gave overly destructive feedback, with no reason for rejection other than his personal opinion, which could have been proven wrong with a number of references- if the manuscript hadn't been rejected due to his comments. Furthermore things were critisized that were clearly not stated or even implyed as such in the manuscript.
The journal did not answer our email with concerns about this reviewer and references proving his statements wrong.
Scientific Reports 4.4
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Scientific Reports 5.7
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: We had 2 good reviewer reports and 1 who wanted rejection. We spent a couple of weeks rewriting and answering extensively every comment. After resubmitting, the Editor did not bother to send our comments to the reviewers, he simply stated that our negative towards performing an experiment made him doubt about the rest of our data even though we reasoned it.

If we had been asked to perform the experiment on a 2nd revision row we would have done it. It is very disappointing that we answered everything the reviewers asked and in the end they did not even get to read it.

Until this last part, the treatment had been very good and the process was quite fast.
Scientific Reports 3.0
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The reviewers were pretty quick, however the editorial handling was extremely slow and ineffective. After the revision, both reviewers were satisfied and recommended publication. The first reviewer only asked to delete a single sentence. After making this simple change and resubmitting, it took 3 weeks for the editor to send the final decision.
Scientific Reports 9.9
weeks
42.0
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Scientific Reports advertises fast decision and constructive peer review, but the process is anything but. As other reviews here indicate, each submission requires a 2 week long quality check before it is sent to the editor. If one minute error is found, you have to start over. After the long process of waiting for review reports to come back (~2-3 months each time), the reviewers were clearly not knowledgeable about the subject matter. Comments from one reviewer in particular were not constructive and complained that the paper was not scientifically sound without providing justification. After two rounds of revision and satisfying two out of three reviewers, the editor decided to send the manuscript to a fourth reviewer who ultimately rejected it. Reviewers complained that the findings of the manuscript are not noteworthy even though the journal explicitly states not to make judgement on significance.
Scientific Reports 9.0
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: This was the worst experience I have had in submitting a manuscript. As noted by others, the submission process was extremely slow - it took 3 weeks for the journal to simply acknowledge receipt of the manuscript on each submission. The review process was also quite opaque. After the first round of reviews, we received one review (labelled 'Reviewer 2', there was no Reviewer 1), which was poorly written and did not seem to be from an expert in the field. We felt that the comments were quite superficial and required only minor revisions and we addressed them as such, however the response from the board member indicated that extra experiments were required (this was certainly not made clear in the initial decision letter, which contained only one sentence from the editorial board member). We cited existing literature to support our responses but were told that this was unacceptable. Quite frankly, the claims made by this journal that they are 'fast', 'rigorous' and 'open' are, in my experience, completely misleading. I would never submit here again.
Scientific Reports 15.4
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Scientific Reports 6.4
weeks
12.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Good 1: The first decision was made in one month after assigning a tracking number.
Good 2: Comments and criticism were fair.
Bad 1: Quality check. It took a long time before sending to editor.
Bad 2: Unexpected delay after revised manuscript submission.
Scientific Reports 9.3
weeks
15.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The review process took a long time relative to other journals of similar quality. At each stage the manuscript had to pass through a quality check that significantly delayed the review process and required all or most of the files to be uploaded again.
Scientific Reports 5.4
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Excellent review process and appropriate editor selection (100%). Many positive comments from the reviewers and some of the reviewers not interested to comment, though they intended to reject with negative comments. However, editor decision very honest that improved the manuscript very vell....
Scientific Reports 5.1
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Overall review process was fair. Reviewers were also fair and asked nice questions, this helped us to improve our manuscript quality.
Please remember Scientific Reports is Nature's journal and so, the manuscript has to follow the natures formatting standards. People complained about the quality check takes time and it does, if manuscript is not properly formatted. You avoid it by submitting proper formatted manuscript in first submission only.
Scientific Reports 5.0
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: After many time without a editor (around 1 month), the paper was sent to only one reviewer that doubted about the autenticity of the results. After answer all the reviewer questions and perfomed all the experiments, the paper was rejected by the reviewer. It take almost 5 month to reject a paper.
Scientific Reports 7.1
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The paper was "transferred" from Nature Communications - but this is bogus because it was not transferred at all. Scientific Reports is not tied in to other NPG accounts and required a new upload of all documents plus adding in all the information regarding funding and co-authors (this should have been transferred directly from Nat Comm). The paper was then delayed in being accepted for review due to some minor copy editing issues, and then further delayed because one author was deceased and had no valid email address. The first round of reviews were slow and only asked for minor changes in content. In the second round of reviews, the paper was not accepted because revision was needed to change the title and one figure legend sentence. In any other journal, this would be an "accept" with very minor modifications decision. The final version was followed by an unnecessary "unsubmitting" action at Scientific Reports with no instructions given as to what the issue was. Paper was resubmitted as it was and accepted. The whole process with this journal was exceptionally tedious and aggravating. Our entire team was quite distressed at the length of time needed for the reviews and the silliness in unsubmitting the paper continually. Staff at Sci Rep were apologetic but there seems to be no effort on the part of Scientific Reports to bring the journal up to other NPG journal standards.
Scientific Reports 7.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2017
Scientific Reports 10.4
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Scientific Reports 3.0
weeks
19.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: The objections raised in the initial review round were mostly fair though it was clear from the comments that one of the reviewers was not an expert in the field. After addressing the objections raised in the initial review, that reviewer simply didn't bother reading our revised manuscript and just repeated the same objections in the second review round. In our response we pointed out that the reviewer's objections were already previously addressed and even mentioned it to the editor. However, the editor chose to reject the manuscript based on that reviewer's comments. A subsequent appeal was also rejected because the original reviewer declined to look at the manuscript again.
Aside from the unprofessional reviews and poor editorial handling, every step of the process required an inordinate amount of time, something that seems to be endemic to this journal which should therefore be avoided.
Scientific Reports 4.7
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The reviews was professional, good and fair. However the editorial process is extremely slow and ineffective. First, the editorial office lost a contact with handling editor and it took them more then 2 months to re-assign the manuscript to another editor, Second, in any stage of the submission the manuscript is going through "quality check", which take at least a week. Third, the production of accepted manuscript is extremely slow as well. It took more than two weeks and additional communication with the production staff to get invoice and the proof of the manuscript.