Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This was a data visualization, which is only subject to internal review. Good process.
Motivation:
We are pleased with the peer review process with PNAS. Comments and feedback from three anonymous reviewers have tremendously improved the quality and clarity of our paper. Two of the three reviewers provided very thorough reviews and detailed comments. The handling editor and all reviewers are very positive and polite.
Motivation:
Pros
- Constructive feedback from reviewers that improved the manuscript
- Professional editor with clear instructions
Cons
- Lengthy review times
- Manuscript was published 7 months after acceptance
- Constructive feedback from reviewers that improved the manuscript
- Professional editor with clear instructions
Cons
- Lengthy review times
- Manuscript was published 7 months after acceptance
Motivation:
Constructive feedback with open-minded reviewers that actually paid attention to the details. Will consider submitting future works to this journal again.
Motivation:
This is a very professional journal with strong reviewers and a straight workflow.
Reviewers' comments were pertinent and improved the paper's quality.
I would submit here again.
Reviewers' comments were pertinent and improved the paper's quality.
I would submit here again.
2.6 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Excellent communication with the journal editors, high quality peer review process. The acceptance to print time was long but that's because Nature Energy seem to put considerably more effort into the aesthetics of their articles.
Immediately accepted after 3.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The revision based on the comments from two Reviewers significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.
Motivation:
Overall, the reviewers' comments were appropriate and pointed out reasonable points for improvement. The text was improved by their suggestions, which were largely in line with each other. P
Motivation:
Most of the comments raised by the reviewers were already explained or figures were present in the supplementary materials. Reviewers seemed subjective and even stated wrong literature information. It was a poor handling of the manuscript and it took more than two months.
Motivation:
The processing time was very long, although I could track the overall progress using the new Elsevier tracking tool. Most of the 'Review' time was spent on Reviewer #2 who did not seem very interested in this paper. That Reviewer submitted one short comment following the first round of reviews stating that they didn't believe the problem was posed correctly but presented no evidence. However, Reviewer #1, obviously an expert in this field, was very thorough and considerate and suggested useful additions to the manuscript. I waited for about 1.5 months before the Editor communicated their final decision to me but no reviewer comments came through, it was just an 'accept' letter.
Motivation:
The most surprising thing was that the journal needed 1 month to assign the paper to an editor, that we never know who she/he was. Then, although the information on the website read as "review received" the editorial decision was not made until one month later.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 69.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The manuscript has been sitting with the editor for a couple of months; then, we sent a message offering help finding reviewers with no answer. So, we decided to withdraw.
Motivation:
The review process took more than usual timeframe but it was worth the wait as the peer-review was so detailed and helped a lot to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The handling editor recommended to reject the article after one month of review, but for some bizarre reason his decision was not finalized in the website. We had to wait 2 more months to get the final decision.
Motivation:
Rigorous review process. Managed to convince one reviewer of our approach.
Motivation:
Rejection after many, many months under review, and based on biased, technically incorrect reviews, because a paper "cannot compete for space" is signs of gross editorial failure (without even mentioning the dubious papers that do manage to compete for space). The review process here is not objective and has no connection to science.
Motivation:
The review process could be faster. The reviewers comments were overall very good, so the rejection was a little unexpected.