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 19.0
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 4 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
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.
Scientific Reports 5.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
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.
Scientific Reports 7.0
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
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.

Scientific Reports 28.2
weeks
32.5
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
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?).
Scientific Reports 4.7
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
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.
Scientific Reports 9.9
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
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.
Scientific Reports Drawn back before first editorial decision after 112 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.
Scientific Reports 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2021
Scientific Reports 4.9
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Scientific Reports Drawn back before first editorial decision after 60 days Drawn back 2020
Motivation: Extremely slow processing time, I would not recommend publishing in this journal.
Scientific Reports n/a n/a 6.0
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.
Scientific Reports 3.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
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