Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
There was a lot of back and forth between the editor and authors, and it overall improved the quality of the accepted manuscript. Nat Prot is apparently (as admitted by the editor) having done staffing issues at the moment, so the manuscript stalled in a couple of spots during consideration. For instance, in the last round of took 12 days to move from "received" to "under consideration" and even then took longer than expected to reach a final decision with the minimal revisions present in the final resubmission. All in all, the process was fair and produced a better manuscript in the end, but was slowed significantly at times.
Motivation:
After a very long wait, we had a rejection with short reviews.
Motivation:
Six months for an initial review round is quite long, the editor was extremely hands-off (e.g. did not add a single word of text beyond generic responses), and we only received one review, which the online portal said was submitted in May (we received it in August as they were waiting for additional reviews). The reviewer was an expert in the field and added considerably to the manuscript, which made the process worthwhile. Still, I will likely submit to one of the other open-access journals next time.
Motivation:
This article never left the editor's desk after 6 months and numerous follow-up emails. So we withdrew it. We submitted in mid-March. A few very minor technical issues (which could have been sorted out after acceptance, and for which there seemed to contradictory advice) delayed it twice. It was sent back once, and the next time it sat for a couple of weeks with a tiny issue, but without notifying us. So it was formally submitted mid-April. That was the last communication of substance we received. We followed up on the website a few times, with a couple of vague responses received. The last two emails were unanswered. More recently, we emailed the publishers only to receive a patronizing email saying it was under control in 'due course'. Really, we should stop being impatient. Given this was a major multi-country survey of direct policy relevance to Covid-19, patience really was not at issue.
Motivation:
Reasonable editorial response time. Appropriate selection of reviewers who provided thorough review and suggestions. Editorial was reasonably good and provide a 'track-changes' document which makes it easy to find potential mistakes, which is very nice. Only a single possibility to provide changes to the pdf proof results in some hesitancy to address non-essential issues. Some figures had considerable flaws in the proof and required specific comment to correct the flaw (inconsistent raster resolution, strange movement of text). Flawed figures with no comment remained flawed (minor issues). Equation editing via comment feels unsafe in context of 'only one proof iteration'. Lack of multiple proof reads should be changed. After several months of revision, more than 48 hours of proofreading should be possible.
Motivation:
Very poor handling: 20 months between submission and acceptance of my manuscript, while the journal states on its website 7 months between submission and acceptance
Motivation:
We receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that, even if certified as being technically correct during peer review, there would not be a strong case for publication in Nature Climate Change. Among the considerations that arise at this stage are the immediacy of interest for the wider climate research community, the degree of advance provided, and the like.
Motivation:
Rejected at pre-submission inquiry
Motivation:
Transferred from Nature Climate Change upon suggestion. "We decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees due to editorial considerations such as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness. In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that these findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Motivation:
"Significant and interesting findings but unfortunately not significant enough for this journal" Quite a lengthy and detailed reply from the editor. They suggested going to Nature communications