Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Immediately accepted after 0.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The editorial process is extremely swift (accepted in 5 days). The editor carefully checked the manuscript, and provided pros/cons and overall evaluation, successfully satisfying both the scientific validity and the ultra-rapid publication.
Motivation:
Easy process. The first round of reviews was a little longer, but overall we were very satisfied with the quality of the feedback we received.
3.3 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2.9 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Very fast review process, although, 1 reviewer left the process delaying it for 2 weeks. A new reviewer was found very fast so the process could continue. Paper was improved based on the review-reports.
Motivation:
This was really a remarkable experience. The received reviews were of high quality and helped to improve the paper. In particular, incorporating reviewers' remarks has required to change the structure of the paper, which has made it more readable. The whole publication process was unexpectedly fast for a mathematical paper.
Motivation:
Similar to previous submissions, decent reviews that were in agreement (makes revisions easier) and helped focus the paper.
Motivation:
Review was reasonably fast, comments are more or less useful. Nevertheless, a quality of the paper has increased after the review.
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