|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||7.1 wks||11.7 wks||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 wks||7.3 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||1 (bad)||Rejected||2017|
|Scientific Reports||10.4 wks||13.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted||2017|
|Scientific Reports||3.0 wks||19.3 wks||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 wks||15.0 wks||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 wks||4.1 wks||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 wks||22.6 wks||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 wks||17.6 wks||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 wks||6.0 wks||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 wks||14.6 wks||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 wks||36.6 wks||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 wks||9.1 wks||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 wks||10.7 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted||2014|
|Scientific Reports||7.1 wks||20.7 wks||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 wks||18.4 wks||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 wks||11.3 wks||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 wks||9.1 wks||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 wks||6.9 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||4 (very good)||Accepted||2016|
|Scientific Reports||11.1 wks||11.1 wks||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 wks||10.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted||2015|
|Scientific Reports||3.3 wks||8.7 wks||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 wks||21.4 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||2 (moderate)||Accepted||2015|
|Motivation: Rather slow editorial and review process|
|Scientific Reports||19.5 wks||19.5 wks||n/a||1||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted||2014|
|Scientific Reports||4.1 wks||4.1 wks||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 wks||9.6 wks||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 wks||26.6 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted||2015|