Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
"As you may know, we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to reviewers, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. In such cases, even if reviewers were to certify the manuscript as technically correct, we do not believe that it represents a development of sufficient importance to warrant publication in Nature Ecology & Evolution. These editorial judgements are based on such considerations as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness.
In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria for further consideration. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal."
In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria for further consideration. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal."
Motivation:
"We decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees due to editorial considerations such as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness. In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that these findings represent a sufficient advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Motivation:
The process was otherwise smooth, but one referee had clearly not read the manuscript carefully and returned a report with comments that were, frankly, strange. We prepared a detailed response, after which the manuscript remained under review for almost three months. During that period, we contacted the editor several times and received only template replies. When the acceptance finally arrived, it became clear that the delay had been caused by the same referee, who had not submitted the final report at all.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was handled professionally from start to finish. Reviewers comments were insightful.
Motivation:
Thank you, editor, for the thorough handling and efficient processing of the peer review.
Motivation:
Again, I felt that Reviewer 1 was not constructive and that the Editor should've mediated that to some degree.
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Professional and helpful reviews that helped significantly improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Overall the handling was relatively quick. Would be nice to see if the progress could have monitored. Received two review reports, one was spot on, the other was okay, yet helped to improve the overall readability and to improve the impact of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The manuscript was automatically transferred to Blood Advances, which enabled us to address the reviewers’ concerns.
Motivation:
Overal fast process and positive outcome.
Motivation:
The reviewing process was clear and very quick (6.5 weeks tota, 2 round of revisions). The reviewers provided great comments that participated to improve the quality of the manuscript. It was a very pleasing experience.
Motivation:
Nature Communications has two clear advantages. First, it usually draws a broad set of reviewers, so if the paper gets a chance for revision, the final version often becomes more appealing to a wider audience. Second, the peer review reports are published online, which adds a valuable level of transparency. If a reviewer was clearly unconstructive, that is visible to readers. It also helps show that some of the paper’s limitations or downsides may have been raised during peer review.
That said, there are also significant disadvantages. The process is often too slow, and editorial handling can be frustratingly delayed. Even after acceptance, publication may take another two months because of bureaucracy, despite the very high fee of more than €6,000. If the editorial service were faster and more efficient, as it often is at ACS journals, the cost might feel more justified.
Another issue is that editors often do not seem to make strong independent decisions unless the reviewers are broadly satisfied. This appears to be a general feature of parts of the Nature portfolio, especially where editors are not active researchers. When a reviewer raises an objection that is obviously exaggerated, unjustified, or irrelevant, the editor should step in and say so rather than letting the process be driven entirely by reviewers.
A further bad practice is that in later rounds of review, some reviewers say their original concerns have been addressed, but then introduce entirely new comments and correction requests unrelated to the initial review. This can create an endless review loop. Editors should be more willing to stop this practice when the new demands are not justified.
That said, there are also significant disadvantages. The process is often too slow, and editorial handling can be frustratingly delayed. Even after acceptance, publication may take another two months because of bureaucracy, despite the very high fee of more than €6,000. If the editorial service were faster and more efficient, as it often is at ACS journals, the cost might feel more justified.
Another issue is that editors often do not seem to make strong independent decisions unless the reviewers are broadly satisfied. This appears to be a general feature of parts of the Nature portfolio, especially where editors are not active researchers. When a reviewer raises an objection that is obviously exaggerated, unjustified, or irrelevant, the editor should step in and say so rather than letting the process be driven entirely by reviewers.
A further bad practice is that in later rounds of review, some reviewers say their original concerns have been addressed, but then introduce entirely new comments and correction requests unrelated to the initial review. This can create an endless review loop. Editors should be more willing to stop this practice when the new demands are not justified.
Motivation:
My manuscript was previously rejected after reviews from Proceedings A, mainly for 'being too broad' with an option to transfer to RSOS. After transfering, we received 'Accept as is' decision almost immediately, which makes it hard to believe the manuscript was looked at again, which matters because we have made some substantial changes in the manuscript between the rejection and resubmission to RSOS (which we highlighted in the Cover Letter). Apart from that, the process has been pleasant.
Motivation:
Good reviews, very professional handling of the editor
Motivation:
The editorial process was exceptionally fast and efficient. The manuscript was sent for review within a few days of submission, and the first decision was returned in approximately 4–5 weeks. Subsequent decisions were also handled promptly, which was particularly helpful given my limited timeline due to a degree requirement.
The reviewer comments were of high quality and highly constructive. They provided detailed and insightful feedback that substantially improved the clarity and rigor of the manuscript.
The submission system was user-friendly, and communication with the editorial office was smooth and appropriate throughout.
Overall, this was a highly positive and well-managed review experience.
The reviewer comments were of high quality and highly constructive. They provided detailed and insightful feedback that substantially improved the clarity and rigor of the manuscript.
The submission system was user-friendly, and communication with the editorial office was smooth and appropriate throughout.
Overall, this was a highly positive and well-managed review experience.