Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee
n/a

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

Latest review

First review round: 5.6 weeks. Overall rating: 5 (excellent). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Roughly one and a half months after submission I got 2 reviews. Reviewer #1 thought that the interpretation of data was incorrect (due to an incomplete understanding of the methodology which is partly my fault for not explaining). Reviewer #2 didn't question the correctness of the methodology, seemed to be aware of the developments in the field, but found the paper not groundbreaking enough for Adv. Sci. Tried appealing but in vain. As both referees agreed that the work has scientific significance, the editor offered a transfer to 3 journals IF 3-4 which I rejected. I believe that the comments of referees were quite useful as correcting them would really improve the quality of the manuscript and it would get published in a journal with a similar IF like Adv. Sci. The editor was really nice and helpful and really tried finding a place for my work at Wiley.
4.7
Excellent process
Space for journal cover image