Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Good quality reviews, relatively fast.
Motivation:
it was desk rejected
Motivation:
The editor took very long to process the review and send us the editorial decision, which added to the time it took for this paper to be published.
Motivation:
I received three review reports from two reviewers in total. Each taking about 4 weeks after my revision was submitted. My manuscript has improved.
Motivation:
thanks, reviewers and editors were polite
Motivation:
The journal is in moderate quality range with 2.5 Citescore. Article were handled by only two reviewers in which one accepted with mild suggestions and other rejected with detailed error points which I am also agree in some part but most part can be easily corrected. I got rejection 31st of December around 8 weeks later of initial submission, and editor chose the reject while one accepted and one rejected. I would like to wait less time for this outcome or I would send a third reviewer for final conclusion. As it is said, Geography is fate. I believe this is the reason of not getting much interest or goodwill of your hardworking.
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Very attentive and careful editors, and excellent communication with them. They keep the standards high, e.g. it is not possible to submit a paper without sharing data and code. The reviews were pretty good too, though I only wish the process was slightly faster for a submission that ended up being rejected. Overall, pretty good experience and despite the rejection, the experience will help improve the paper to be submitted elsewhere.
Motivation:
You will see that, while the reviewers find your work of interest, they raise substantive concerns that cast doubt on the advance your findings represent over earlier work and the strength of the novel conclusions that can be drawn at this stage. Unfortunately, these reservations are sufficiently important to preclude publication of this study in Nature Communications.
Motivation:
The review process was particularly slow (it was a special issue for the journal) and it was nearly impossible to contact the person in charge of our paper. The user interface is also quite unfriendly and the important emails are exclusively send to the corresponding author without cc to other authors involved (which can cause issues and further delays if the corresponding author is sick or absent).
On the positive side, we received high quality reviews that truly helped improving the scientific and editorial quality of the work.
On the positive side, we received high quality reviews that truly helped improving the scientific and editorial quality of the work.
Motivation:
When a paper is turned down on editorial grounds, we aim to return it to the authors as quickly as possible, avoiding a time-consuming peer-review process. In making this decision we do not intend it to be a criticism of the technical aspects of the work, but rather an editorial assessment of its appropriateness for publication in Nature Medicine, based on originality of the findings, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest and potential impact on improving human health.
Motivation:
Desk reject with motivation "does not fit within the scope of the journal". No further comments as to why it was out of scope. The paper was 1000% within the scope of the journal so basically the editor did not like it but did not want to bother making a sensible explanation.
It's the second time this exact same thing happened with this journal. Polite request for clarifications went unanswered.
It's the second time this exact same thing happened with this journal. Polite request for clarifications went unanswered.
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Overall good & fair process, thorough reviews, helpful editor. Apparently a third reviewer was asked, but never responded. Reasonable copy-editing also, however I was disappointed by the lack of an edit trace & PDF proof.
Motivation:
During the process, the status has remained in『waiting for reviewer selection』for more than two months. I understand that lacking reviewers are prevalent now. Reviewers generally read carefully and gave helpful comments.
Motivation:
Very quickly, good
Motivation:
We received a conditional acceptance with minor revision after one round of revision. And then the editor went silent for eight months after we submitted the final version. We tried to contact the editor at least three times but received no responses during this eight-month period. We finally talked to the website manager to get a response. And then the editor informed us that we needed to transfer the article to its sister journal newly founded in 2021, otherwise the paper would be rejected because it was no longer suited for the journal. This is the treatment we got from this journal. Also, this paper is led by a graduate student and basically one year has been wasted for her, which made this experience even worse. I would not recommend this journal to my colleagues.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected at Cell Reports, due to a clearly unreasonable reviewer. The Cell Reports editor communicated with the iScience editor and encouraged us to send the manuscript there. We did so, and the iScience editor find one more reviewer to review our revisions (for the comments raised by the Cell Reports reviewers). It was accepted quickly
Motivation:
Very professional and efficient review process. This paper was a short peer reviewed Editorial, so this likely contributed to the rapid peer review and editorial speeds. Nonetheless an excellent publishing experience.
Motivation:
They just said "your manuscript be submitted to another outlet for which it may be a better fit". That is not constructive or fair. Also, my topic fit them.
Motivation:
Invited review. Excellent handling and fast. However, receiving the proofs and formatted PDF for review took a very long time.
Motivation:
It is not the fastest review I have experienced. The quality of the review was average. However, it is still acceptable, the editorial time is responsive, and the review process is within what they expect. I will recommend submitting here if you are not in a rush.
Motivation:
Quality of review was good, and suggestions for improvements mostly were clear and relevant.
Response was very slow in both review rounds. Too bad the first response came right before the Summer vacation period, reason why it took us 12 weeks to respond.
Response was very slow in both review rounds. Too bad the first response came right before the Summer vacation period, reason why it took us 12 weeks to respond.
Motivation:
The chief editor handled the manuscript very efficiently, and it was sent to the external review on the same day after submission. We got a response after about three weeks and the questions weren't difficult to reply. Our manuscript was accepted after resubmited for two days.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to reviewers very quickly. Although the reviews were mixed, with one proposing minor revisions and others raising issues that could be handled within a revision, the editors explained their rejection well and even proposed a prioritization of the reviewers' comments and suggested outlets to sent the manuscript next to.
Motivation:
Quick turnaround. Excellent review process.
Motivation:
considered a quit decision.
Motivation:
Originally we submitted the manuscript to Green Chemistry, but it was rejected by the Editor for "low green advance", who suggested to transfer it to RSC Advances. We agreed with the transfer and the manuscript was eventually published in the latter journal. During the review process one Reviewer (out of 2) was not very positive, so we had to rebut his arguments. The Editor agreed with our stance.
Motivation:
We submitted the manuscript to Materials Characterization, but within a week the Editor recommended to transfer it to Materials Today Communications. We agreed with the transfer, although it required some adjustments to the text. Eventually it was published in the latter journal.