Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Postharvest Biology and Technology.
I regret to inform you that while one reviewer was supportive of this study, the other two reviewers (experts in the field) recommended against publishing your manuscript, and I must therefore reject it. My comments, and any reviewer comments, are below.
I regret to inform you that while one reviewer was supportive of this study, the other two reviewers (experts in the field) recommended against publishing your manuscript, and I must therefore reject it. My comments, and any reviewer comments, are below.
Motivation:
Desk-rejection after 18 days is disheartening, to say the least.
Motivation:
Most of the review reports were of high quality and supportive. They have helped to improve the paper. However, the first round took long (more than 5 months), but that's not necessarily the fault of the editor or the journal. The communication with the editor was perfect.
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
Motivation:
A short turn-around time
Motivation:
Reviews from APL tend to be not very detailed, as I've gone through and had papers accepted with them in the past. I'm always happy with their relatively quick turnaround times. However, this time we had an unreasonable request from a reviewer, who requested additional experiments (make new samples and build a new set-up for different kinds of measurements), additional simulations, additional calculations, and completely new figures to recapture all the new info. I believe this is asking too much for APL. This request would be sufficient for a completely separate and higher impact paper. We decided it wasn't worth it and withdrew our submission and decided to go elsewhere.
Motivation:
Rejected after 20 days because not interesting enough for the audience of the journal, according to the editor.
Motivation:
detailed explanation why the manuscript was not a fit for the journal
Motivation:
After 6 weeks I received the email, that the editor is assigned and 10 minutes later I received the email with the generic desk reject text (“not novel enough”). So, the editor read/screened the entire documents, incl. cover letter etc. and wrote the email in less than 10 minutes? I do not think so.
6 weeks for a desk reject is in my eyes too long. Anyway, if it takes that long, even if it shouldn't, I expect a little more feedback. Also, I would expect that the manuscript is not wiped away by the editor in less than 10 minutes. They should do a desk reject faster or review the manuscript properly. But this way it is just not right.
6 weeks for a desk reject is in my eyes too long. Anyway, if it takes that long, even if it shouldn't, I expect a little more feedback. Also, I would expect that the manuscript is not wiped away by the editor in less than 10 minutes. They should do a desk reject faster or review the manuscript properly. But this way it is just not right.
Motivation:
We had an excellent experience. The review reports were very detailed and professional. It took some effort to address them, but they have enhanced the quality of the paper. Overall, the entire process was quick and pleasant. The associate editor was very responsive about a query we had.
Motivation:
The journal should update the Aims and Scope on the web pages - they say that the journal provides a venue for papers on pathogenesis (among others)... and then they immediately reject papers on pathogenesis, as they "do not strongly inform on disease emergence and spread". Quite confusing.
Motivation:
The editor was very professional and responsive.
Motivation:
After all a very good process. Editor was very cooperative and the overall quality as well as the tone of the reviews was good and respectful.
Motivation:
Was rejected by editor because the work did not "represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications". However, the editor recommended we transfer to Nature Communications Medicine, which we did.
Motivation:
Fast and fair review process. Would submit here again.
Motivation:
It takes almost two weeks for them to reject without external review. I feel it is too much (and sadly it happens all the time).
Motivation:
They handled my manuscript in a professional.
Very fast editorial and external reviewers review process.
In less than 2 months of initial submissions the manuscript was published
Very fast editorial and external reviewers review process.
In less than 2 months of initial submissions the manuscript was published
Motivation:
Two weeks and a standard desk rejection....
We (like Nature) decline a large proportion of submitted manuscripts without sending them to referees, in cases where we feel that, even if referees were to certify the manuscript as technically correct, there would not be a strong enough case for publication in Nature Physics. I am sorry to have to say that we must take this view in the present case.
We (like Nature) decline a large proportion of submitted manuscripts without sending them to referees, in cases where we feel that, even if referees were to certify the manuscript as technically correct, there would not be a strong enough case for publication in Nature Physics. I am sorry to have to say that we must take this view in the present case.