Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The entire review process went pretty fast. The reviewer comments were quite positive, and it was not too difficult to revise and resubmit the manuscript.
Motivation:
It took so long...
Motivation:
I found it unfair that when two reviewers recommend acceptance and one reviewer had a "mixed feeling", the journal decided to reject the paper outright. I was not given a chance to address the concern raised by the third reviewer.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were extremely positive. One reviewer raised one major concern, but the editor was quite explicit about how to address that question. Right after we followed that suggestion, the paper was accepted.
Motivation:
One reviewer rejected the paper because we did not cite a paper that is written in Japanese.
Motivation:
The situation was unfortunate but understandable. I wished that the editor had informed us earlier about the situation so that we did not have to waste three weeks.
Motivation:
The associate editor handled the submission really well. It was slightly frustrating that the editor-in-chief took their time (about two-months) to put a final stamp on the paper, after the associate editor issued acceptance.
Motivation:
PNAS gave the blanket "this study lacks broad appeal" rejection notice. Tremendously annoying to wait for five weeks and then hear that!
Motivation:
Reasonably fast, though it's a bit tannoying to have to wait for two weeks for what is essentially a desk rejection.
Motivation:
I got the two reviews in July 2014; both suggested "accept with minor revisions". Then after a full 8 months of waiting, I unexpectedly got an associate editor report with the verdict of "revise and resubmit". This AE had obviously not seen I had already substantially revised the paper. Fortunately it so happened that my revisions addressed virtually all comments, but in all it was one of the weirdest procedures I've seen yet.
Motivation:
Language is known to be slow so 21 weeks is reasonable (so I'm told). I feel like the associate editor was way harsher than the reviewers, which were both critical but also constructive. An editor less sceptical about the line of research pursued would have recommended revise and resubmit based on these reviews. Still, the overall quality of the reviews was good, and overall the experience was helpful.
Motivation:
I was very impressed by the short turnaround time for the first round of reviews, which seemed rigorous and attentive. I also received very detailed and helpful comments from the editor. The only delay came after submitting the first revised version; I emailed the editor after about 10 weeks, and received an acceptance a week thereafter, asking for some further very minor revisions.
The other major delay was in the time between acceptance and print. The paper was accepted in December 2013, and will not appear in a volume until May 2015 (17 months later).
Overall, it was a positive experience.
The other major delay was in the time between acceptance and print. The paper was accepted in December 2013, and will not appear in a volume until May 2015 (17 months later).
Overall, it was a positive experience.
Motivation:
Excellent revisions, but too much time passed from the first submission to the final acceptance of the manuscript.
7.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Usefull reviews and a quick revision process.
Motivation:
The comments of the first reviews took a few months. They included little of use. The editing of our article was excellent und asiduous.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow, particularly for a journal that advertises a "fast publication schedule". I had to contact the editorial office on multiple occasions and was asked to provide additional suggestions for potential reviewers. Furthermore, it is clear that acceptance was very unlikely from the outset, as the editor ultimately rejected the basis of the study.
Motivation:
I was disappointed with the reviewers' comments. They liked the paper, but were not able/willing to give fundamental critique or suggestions which could improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Generally very good handling of the manuscript; first review report very good and instructive. Duration of second review round surprisingly long (10 weeks) given that the editor's decision after the first review round was "accept condition upon minor revisions".
Motivation:
Received 3 very helpful reviews in the first round, after major revisions finally accepted without further ado. Overall process was very fast and the editor was very professional. One of the best review experiences yet.
18.7 weeks
36.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Very quick first assessment