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 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.
Scientific Reports 3.9
weeks
3.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Scientific Reports Drawn back before first editorial decision after 192 days Drawn back 2019
Motivation: A transferred manuscript which is supposed to reasonably decrease review time was unfortunately failed to get a handling editor for two months, unbelievably. Yet, after receiving a review, the manuscript had again stuck in the hands of the handling editor for more than two months because of the unavailability of additional reviewers. We tried to reach out to the editorial office to explain the situation but apologizing for the delay in all of our three communications was what we received. This is a very chilling and outrageous experience we have ever had. Submitting to this journal is waste of time.
Scientific Reports 2.4
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The editor was efficient and the reviewers' comments are reasonable and logical, which helped in improving the manuscript.
Scientific Reports 5.9
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back 2019
Motivation: Although it was an uneasy decision for us, we have decided to withdraw our manuscript after nearly 8 months of the lengthy review process. We have learned after withdrawal that the journal had a positive (considered for publication ) review from one of the reviewers. The second reviewer, however, has never sent his/her opinion on the revised manuscript (six months after submission, until withdrawal). We think that the journal had multiple options to deal with this situation, for instance they could find another reviewer or take a decision based on the opinion of the first reviewer and the editor assigned to the paper. Since SREP is in the business of APC (article processing charge)-based publishing, it should guarantee to its authors an engagement of a responsible editorial board and a team of trustworthy reviewers in order to structure an effective and operational review process.
Scientific Reports 6.0
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The process is smooth, but the initial quality check takes way too long.
Scientific Reports 9.0
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: For the initial quality check for the manuscript submission, the journal was suggested us to provide the full-length gels and blots as a supplementary Information. So Fig S9 and S10 are the original full-length blots which we took some times to find them. This is our fist experience to provide the such kinds of original data.
Scientific Reports 13.6
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2018
Scientific Reports 17.4
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Decision is very slow.
Furthermore, editorial office did not response to my e-mail considering delay of first decision.
There is no direct way to contact office. Just e-mail. I did not get any response.

Scientific Reports 23.9
weeks
39.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: In line with many reviews here: The handling time is way too long (ridiculous quality check), reviewer comments were not useful at all. In the end, the published version was almost identical to the first version submitted but the whole process took 9 months.
Scientific Reports 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: We received two reviews, after three months, with the decision to reject the manuscript. Reviewer comments were fair, and the decision to reject was based on one of the reviewers comments about methodological concerns. These study caveats are discussed and justified in the manuscript. The other review was positive and constructive. I have no problem with the outcome, but 3 months is a long time to wait for a rejection.
Scientific Reports 15.9
weeks
15.9
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: The review process is too sluggish. Really horrible. After 15.9 weeks they rejected my manuscript without any chance of self-defense.
Scientific Reports 18.4
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: I have wasted time. It took so many days for selecting reviewers. It took more than four months for decision of rejection.
Scientific Reports 18.6
weeks
22.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Reviews were excellent but the delay in process after submission was pathetic.
Scientific Reports 10.1
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Review process was very slow but reviewers were very kind.
Scientific Reports n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Scientific Reports 10.1
weeks
21.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Although review process was very slow but reviewers comments significantly improved our manuscript.
Scientific Reports 27.7
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: The review process was horribly sluggish. The ~190days for the first decision is unacceptable.
Scientific Reports 6.4
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Getting the manuscript past the journal's quality check is a nightmare. Quality check takes up to 7 days, and the journal does not hesitate to send back a manuscript due to minuscule formatting issues. Across original submission and revision, we lost maybe 3-4 weeks of time thanks to this headache. The review itself was quick and on point. The reviewers did a great job here.
Scientific Reports 23.9
weeks
28.2
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Extremely slow reviewing process. Not able to find handing editor for two months after submission. The first round of review took about 5 months. One of the three reviewers simply questioned ethics in animal experiment because we collaborated with CROs in China (yes, that was exactly what he wrote as comment). The reviewer was not convinced even we provided information on IACUC approval in the original manuscript and the response to the reviewers later. We were able to address the comments from the two other reviewers and still got rejected. I feel the editor's decision was driven by that specific reviewer. The whole process is painful and it will be my last time of considering this journal.
Scientific Reports 9.6
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: This was the worst experience in my 20-year science career. First of all, it took 2 months for the editor to find reviewers. Second, it took 1-2 weeks to pass initial quality check after every submission. Third, the editor emailed my co-author to review the manuscript by mistake. You are kidding me! (this is funny but this shouldn't happen). Obviously, the editor didn't check the manuscript carefully. Finally, most of reviewers comments were really picky. After the revision, one reviewer accepted but the other reviewer didn't believe our comments in the rebuttal letter and asked us to carry out more experiments. Then, the editor rejected without providing us reasonable reasons! I will never send my manuscripts to Scientific Reports. This is by far the worst journal ever!
Scientific Reports 17.1
weeks
22.5
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: I had a good experience with this journal
Scientific Reports 22.6
weeks
31.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: It took more than a month for an editor to be assigned to the manuscript and 35 days for the decision to send to review. First round of review wasn't fast (~4.5 months). Second round took a lot longer than it should have, with acceptance coming more than two months after re-submission but no feedback, changes, or indication that reviewers were re-engaged at all. However, they were very quick in demanding payment of publishing fees and reminding us that payment hadn't been made (the reminder came after less than one business day! Accepted on a Friday, reminder to pay came the following Sunday)
Scientific Reports 10.1
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
Scientific Reports 15.0
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Our manuscript was handled terribly by this journal. First our initial submission was returned to us for not including a supplement with full size blots, which is specifically stated in their guidelines to only be required after the paper is accepted. Next it took ~7 weeks for the journal to assign an associate editor despite us including 3 editor suggestions in the cover letter. Multiple emails later, we provided the journal with a list of~15 associate editors with the necessary expertise to handle our manuscript. After finally being assigned an editor, it took ~6 more weeks to find reviewers. The paper was submitted in early January. By the time the reviews cam back it was mid-April. Addressing the reviewers concerns was relatively simple and the paper was returned to the journal in a few weeks. The paper was accepted for publication in late June. It is July 17 as I write this and we still have no indication as to when the paper will actually be published. In the words of my PI, "I've published over 200 papers and this is by far the worst journal I have ever dealt with."
Scientific Reports Drawn back before first editorial decision after 91 days Drawn back 2019
Motivation: Worst experience for this journal. The status of my manuscript remain manuscript submitted since three months. I got a mail that they have mailed 20 editors for handling my manuscript and nobody is accepting ant request and please withdraw your paper. How is dat possible even in a repute journal like this. Utter time wastage..... Disheartened
Scientific Reports 9.4
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The only negative experience is that it took really a long time for each round of reviews. I did not have any problems with the quality check, it was very fast, within 1 day. Only when I submitted the paper for the third time, for some reason the quality check took three days (maybe because it was around Christmas). I definitely advise to just follow the rules regarding the manuscript preparation and take into account that quality check may take time.
My best experience about this Journal is with the reviewers. While one of them was quite brief, and did not ask for many changes, the other one was really incredible. Despite asking really a lot of stuff to be done, his/her reviews were so helpful, incredibly insightful, and I am truly sorry that I may never found out who that reviewer was. That reviewer incredibly influenced the quality of the paper. I only wish all the reviewers could be so professional and take time to review the manuscripts in such a thorough way.
Scientific Reports 7.4
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Overall it was a productive revision process. Revision took the apropriate time and comments were constructive. What we did not like about the revision process was Quality Check process. While quality check and copyright related comments from editorial team was meaningfull and helpfull, every time we adressed the manuscript quality related issue it took over a week, for manuscript to be processed further sometimes to another quality related matter that took another week for editorial team to review. It is understndable however, giving the high volume of publications Sci Rep is dealing with. We have never recived the reviewers responce after we sumitted revised manuscript just outright acceptance from the editor, even though from the manuscript status page we knew that manuscript went throug another peer review cycle.
Scientific Reports 4.4
weeks
20.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The journal has the usual peer review process however provided reviews are superficial relative to how long they take to get provided.