Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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.
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.
23.9 weeks
39.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
15.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
18.4 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
18.6 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Reviews were excellent but the delay in process after submission was pathetic.
10.1 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Review process was very slow but reviewers were very kind.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
10.1 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Although review process was very slow but reviewers comments significantly improved our manuscript.
27.7 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The review process was horribly sluggish. The ~190days for the first decision is unacceptable.
6.4 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
23.9 weeks
28.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
9.6 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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!
17.1 weeks
22.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
I had a good experience with this journal
22.6 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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)
10.1 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
15.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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."
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 91.2 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
9.4 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
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.
7.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
4.4 weeks
20.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
0.6 weeks
0.6 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The paper was transferred from another NPG journal where it was rejected after review and the reviewers transferred with it. The deputy editor personally handled the transfer, was responsive, and accepted the manuscript after reading the revised copy and the responses to reviewers without sending it out for further review. It was a seamless transfer and we're happy with the process at SR.
11.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Both reviewers raised mostly similar concerns. Although we can address most comments relatively easily, thereby improving the manuscript as requested by the reviewers, the editor chose to reject the manuscript mostly basing his decision on a too low sample size.
19.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The most painful, inefficient and frustrating dealing with a journal I have had in a 25 year scientific career. After a ridiculous battle with their initial quality check which meant that it took 2 weeks after submission to get anyone to even look at it, it took an outrageous 19 weeks for primary review. After this infuriating wait, the feeble comments that came back could have been written by an undergraduate that had scanned the paper in 5 minutes.
We turned the revised version around in a week, had yet another battle with their content management system and quality check, and it still took a further 14 days to accept the minute changes that had been requested. I had submitted 2 papers nearly simultaneously to Scientific Reports, and the second was treated equally inefficiently. The administrative/editorial staff seemed perpetually overwhelmed, responses to emailed inquiries were slow or absent. We were desperate to get our work published in time to be able to cite it in our grant applications before their respective deadlines and were unable to, which weakened our applications significantly.
Extremely frustrating. We will not submit to Scientific Reports again.
We turned the revised version around in a week, had yet another battle with their content management system and quality check, and it still took a further 14 days to accept the minute changes that had been requested. I had submitted 2 papers nearly simultaneously to Scientific Reports, and the second was treated equally inefficiently. The administrative/editorial staff seemed perpetually overwhelmed, responses to emailed inquiries were slow or absent. We were desperate to get our work published in time to be able to cite it in our grant applications before their respective deadlines and were unable to, which weakened our applications significantly.
Extremely frustrating. We will not submit to Scientific Reports again.
2.6 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Possibly the Associate Editor himself reviewed the paper and pointed out the mistakes and he was correct in rejecting the paper!
7.9 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
We liked the process of publishing at this journal.
4.1 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
45 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
8.7 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Editor spent 20 days to find the reviewers. Reviewers' comments are fair and addressable.
After the second round, there were no further comments then accepted directly.
After the second round, there were no further comments then accepted directly.
22.7 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2018
4.3 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
22.1 weeks
40.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
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.
5.7 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
17.6 weeks
23.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
9.3 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 45.0 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.
4.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
5.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
5 reports
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.
8.1 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.