Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Advanced Science has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee?
n/a
Kind of complaint procedure
n/a
Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 3 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 1.4 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 2.0 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.3 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.7 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 4.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 4.7 (range 0-5) compare →

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.