Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
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.
9.9 weeks
36.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Rejected
2015
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
9.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
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!
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
7.1 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
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.
11.6 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
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
6.7 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
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.
5.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: The review process has been of help in improving the formal quality of data.
3.4 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Accepted
2016
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2016
Motivation: Very slow review process. Manuscript was sent for review after 7 weeks of submission.
8.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015
3.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: I think the review process was relatively shorter than other journal.
15.4 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
2015
Motivation: Rather slow editorial and review process
19.5 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
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.
5.3 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
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.
11.0 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015