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 10.8
weeks
10.8
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2021
Scientific Reports 32.9
weeks
35.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: It took the journal 4 months to find a handling editor, and then it took another 2 months to find reviewers. The reviews I got back consisted of Reviewer 1 contributing primarily a copy edit job of grammatical and sentence restructuring instead of actual feedback on the content in the MS and Reviewer 2 asking for the inclusion of four references, three of which were from the same working group along with one other request for revision of the title and abstract.
Scientific Reports 6.0
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: I believe that the reviewers’ suggestions were very helpful in improving
the manuscript quality, especially in the results section. A better description of results and discussion sections has really improved the overall understanding of the article.
Scientific Reports 9.1
weeks
16.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 5.7
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 34.6
weeks
39.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 8.1
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: Reviewer 1 seems to not have been aware of the journal's article structure (introduction, results, discussion, methods), and commented to have missed a section that was included with the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 had many good suggestions that will strengthen the manuscript when submitted elsewere.

the manuscript was transferred from NHB, but the transfer was not as smooth as promised, with many changes necessary to fit the NHB manuscript to the SR format.
Scientific Reports 45.1
weeks
49.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: It took >10 months for the first reviewer reports to arrive, which is the longest duration from submission to first reviewer feedback out of >10 journals we recently published in.​ If the manuscript had been of above average length it might be understandable that the review process takes longer, but it was in fact quite short (5400 words).​
Scientific Reports 10.0
weeks
24.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: The reviewers' reports were very interesting and helped us improve the manuscript.
However, the review process between our resubmission and the outcome notification was extremely long: 3 months and 12 days.
Scientific Reports 8.4
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 7.3
weeks
23.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: None of the reviews raised any serious challenges to the research and the writeup of the ms. At the end of the day, after we had, in our judgment, thoroughly addressed all the reviewer's points, none of our rebuttals were addressed but the editor had a colleague on the editorial board review it and this editor, who was obviously ignorant of the domain, recommended rejection. What was particularly galling was that the action editor provided no opportunity to address this last review. All in all, it was the worst and most caprisious editorial experience I've had or witnessed (I myself have been an editor) in my professional life.
Scientific Reports Drawn back before first editorial decision after 71 days Drawn back 2020
Motivation: It is easy for your manuscript to be lost in this journal. They have updated their submission system which do not allow you to track your manuscript. Besides, it is common that you will struggle in selecting appropriate handling editor, and on many occasions will not accept your manuscript and will be going in circles.
Scientific Reports n/a n/a 251.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Scientific Reports 21.6
weeks
24.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: It took so much time before receiving the first decision. The status of the article is not available for the authors. This is so stressful. Then, I asked the status several times. The answers from the office were not so slow as the processing for review.
Scientific Reports 6.1
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: One reviewer was very thorough and caught some small inconsistencies and even requested some new material (a little bit tangential to the work) to be added. But, we considered his comments very appropriate and definitely contributed to the final paper. The second reviewer made a very superficial reading of the text, mostly commenting on the aesthetics of the text.
Scientific Reports 8.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Scientific Reports 19.5
weeks
21.5
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Scientific Reports 7.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 20.9
weeks
32.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Extremely long and frustrating processing time. The article went through several rounds of revision and would get kicked back by quality check for different things that weren't identified in previous rounds, each time taking a week to go through another quality check. It took over a month to find an editor for the article and one was identified only after I reached out to the journal to figure out why the manuscript hadn't moved and suggested more potential editors. The length of the review stage was on par with other journals, but the manuscript sat in Decision Started status for over a month. I got no response to my inquiries during this time. It took ~5 months to get the first review back, which is significantly longer than any other journal that I've used. On a positive note, the reviewer comments were thorough and did improve the manuscript. Subsequent review rounds did not take as long individually, but the manuscript spent over 8 months under review (not including time spent working on revisions).
Scientific Reports 7.1
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Scientific Reports 22.4
weeks
35.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Handling was extremely poor, with long times to allocate reviewers and for review. Manuscript was initially rejected, despite meeting the journal’s publication criteria; an appeal was successful. Review of the revised manuscript took 3 months.
Scientific Reports 3.1
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
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.
https://scirev.org/reviews/scientific-reports/
scirev.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-21
47296
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:I37NALE53452N6ISOSARJVQZVU2T25U7
<urn:uuid:40945bd6-8e20-41c5-b858-3dffbc3f195a>
2021-05-13T00:20:23Z
37.97.151.49
text/html
sha1:U5DMCOODZDG4CSBHQCBNUOGTM7LYG3KR
<urn:uuid:622bde9c-d58d-46ce-b2b6-15a2c5b8afe7>
https://scirev.org/reviews/scientific-reports/
response
<urn:uuid:344a6bad-738d-48d8-a454-4bf0c40b7b37>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-185.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/