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 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.
Scientific Reports 4.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Reviews were mostly fair and had some criticisms that we felt we could address. Unfortunately, the editor rejected completely without opportunity to revise, even though the reviewers seemed open to revisions in their comments.
Scientific Reports 6.4
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: 3 critical points:
-After every single of the 4 submissions, we were informed after 5-11 days that the quality check wasn't passed. Each time another tiny point had to be corrected that had been in there from the beginning, instead to inform us about all the points after the 1st check. And checking the corrected points took again up to 7 days each time. This prolonged processing tremendously.
-Instead of the original submission date, the system marked the submission 18 days later.
-After the 3rd submission, we recieved an email with "Final Decision" in the header, but had to resubmit the manuscript again. Though only 3 minor points (typos etc.) had to be corrected, reviewing took a month again.
Scientific Reports 5.4
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: One review consisted of only one negative sentence. This reviewer did not comment on a conceptual advance or the scientific quality but only on significance to the field although the journal explicitly stated in their policy that only scientific quality and not significance is rated. Both rounds of review were in good time but a quite negative experience was the quality check with unspecific and unjustified comments with a considerable loss of time and the requirement to upload each part of the manuscript again and again.
Scientific Reports n/a n/a 31.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Our paper was not sent to peer review because of unfair desicion of Editorial Board Member who handled our submission. He assessed our paper based on its significance not its scientific and technical soundness. We appealed for this desicion because It is clearly stated in the aim and scope section that "referees and editorial board members will determine whether a paper is scientifically valid, rather than making judgements on significance or whether the submission represents a conceptual advance". However since Scientific Reports allow appeals only after peer reviews, they rejected our appeals as well. We moved on another jornal.
Scientific Reports 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 2
(moderate)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Unfortunately no explanation for decision - and this after over a month of waiting.
Scientific Reports 14.6
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: It is unacceptable that after 3 months and a half, we received just the comment of one reviewer. We expected two or three referee after such a long time.
Scientific Reports 9.9
weeks
36.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2015
Scientific Reports n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Scientific Reports 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: -2 Reviewers out of 3 came with subjective statements, not scientifically sound. Some statements were even not related to the content of the paper.
-Appeal was introduced, we had to wait for 6 months before this was processed 'because NPG lost the editor'. Then, after appeal was accepted reviewing process took again 3 months, it ended up with the fact that the paper was sent back to the 3 initial reviewers, one of them refused to read again, and clearly, the editor did even not read our arguments.
-Very poor communication with NPG.
-According to a reviewer "his paper does not merit the high profile and sales pitch it is aiming for by being published in a Scientific Reports"
In other words: Sci Rep has to make money!
Scientific Reports 8.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Scientific Reports 7.1
weeks
20.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: One reviewer did not want our paper to be accepted and the editor did not send our manuscript to another reviewer. Thus the paper was rejected after months of revision.

Each time the paper is submites, there is a the quality check that take two weeks before the paper is send to reviewers.
Scientific Reports 11.6
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: review was too long ; ms sent on 28th september 2015; accepted as completed only on 15th october and first decision only on 04th january 2015
Even the evaluation was very long : 6 weeks for an acceptance without additional corrections
Scientific Reports 6.7
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Review process was fine, but unnecessary slow editorial process and quality check period after first submission and then again after second submission.
Scientific Reports 5.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The review process has been of help in improving the formal quality of data.
Scientific Reports 3.4
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Scientific Reports 11.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Very slow review process. Manuscript was sent for review after 7 weeks of submission.
Scientific Reports 8.0
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Scientific Reports 3.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: I think the review process was relatively shorter than other journal.
Scientific Reports 15.4
weeks
21.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Rather slow editorial and review process
Scientific Reports 19.5
weeks
19.5
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Scientific Reports 4.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: It was decided to be outside the scope. Although we are generally satisfied, it is unfortunate that this decision was not made by the editor directly. As the review process went quickly, we did not loose to much time.
Scientific Reports 5.3
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: fast review process, good remarks of the reviewers. A downside was the long period of quality checking after the submission of the revised manuscript.
Scientific Reports 11.0
weeks
26.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015