其最主要的问题在于“no requirement for novelty or broad interest”。不过这个“novelty or broad interest”如果仅靠有限的几个审稿人来判断其实也是片面的，那么“ judgement themselves post-publication”就看引用数了。目前SR的引用数应该说明其至少算不差的期刊。

To be considered for publication in Scientific Reports, a paper should be technically sound. Technical soundness refers to both methods and analysis, i.e. the methods must be appropriate and properly conducted, and the conclusions drawn must be fully supported by the data. Referees are asked not to make a judgement on the paper's importance - we ask the scientific community to make this judgement themselves post-publication.

Scientific Reports, unlike other journals published by Nature Publishing Group, does not, therefore, require an advance within a given field, and there is no requirement for novelty or broad interest.

The review form will rapidly allow you to provide feedback in the following areas:

- Is the paper technically sound?
- Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed?
- Are the claims fully supported by the experimental data?
- Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
- If the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form, does the study seem sufficiently promising that the authors should be encouraged to consider a resubmission in the future?

In addition to answering the previous questions, you can provide further information as free-text, including comments that may answer the following:
- Is the manuscript clearly written? If not, how could it be made more accessible?
- Have the authors done themselves justice without overselling their claims?
- Have they been fair in their treatment of previous literature?
- Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the experiments could be reproduced?
- Is the statistical analysis of the data sound?
- Are there any special ethical concerns arising from the use of animals or human subjects? 返回小木虫查看更多