Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
What is clear from my experience is that authors must be prepared to micromanage the review process with this journal and be very pro-active (reminder e-mails may not be sent to tardy reviewers unless the author makes inquiries). After 5 months from first submission, with no word from the editor, I asked for a status update. I was told they hadn't heard back from one reviewer and that a reminder e-mail would be sent to them. A month later I hadn't heard back yet and sent a follow-up message. I received my first response from reviewers just days later. Again, waited a long time (3 months) after second submission before asking for a status update and, again, received reviewer responses only days later, so my inquiry likely prompted action.
Motivation:
Our article was reviewed by the editor-in-chief and he considered it to be better suited to a different journal. This could be considered reasonable since the topic was more closely related to the building engineering than to cities in general. The editor was very kind in his reply and he offered two alternative journals - one of them was a very good journal where the paper was eventually accepted.
Motivation:
Review was fast and efficient. Reviews were knowledgeable and helpful
Motivation:
After going through 2 revisions where each review process took almost a month, the paper was accepted. It took almost 8 months from the day the paper was submitted to the day the paper was accepted.
Motivation:
It was relatively slow for the first round review, but it is understandable because of COVID-19. Also, editor responded to us promptly regarding the issue.
The review quality was good, and I appreciated that the editor had done a reasonable job. The first 2 reviews was positive but relatively brief. The editor could have strictly accepted but he instead found a 3rd reviewer, who had offered more constructive and detailed comments. This is fair to all authors who submitted their work to this journal, would allow the authors to learn from mistakes, and would ensure the quality of the journal.
The review quality was good, and I appreciated that the editor had done a reasonable job. The first 2 reviews was positive but relatively brief. The editor could have strictly accepted but he instead found a 3rd reviewer, who had offered more constructive and detailed comments. This is fair to all authors who submitted their work to this journal, would allow the authors to learn from mistakes, and would ensure the quality of the journal.
Motivation:
Highly efficient, timely, and constructive. And they communicated in a very empathetic way. Together, these aspects make the review process tolerable and easier to learn from. Impressive journal team.
Motivation:
The associate editor had trouble getting people to agree to be reviewers which explains the long waiting time. The review process moved forward after numerous emails to the editor-in-chief. Even though the paper was rejected, the high quality reviews were very helpful. One of the reviewers also corrected the typos and language style.
Motivation:
The review process was extremely fast, the communication with the editor was excellent. The content of the reviews was helpful, not just for this paper, but also for the further research.
Motivation:
It took almost one month when we receive the desk rejection. The manuscript status changed from under evaluation, to advisor and under evaluation in the first week. Finally it's rejected after 3 weeks and they offered the transfer to SA. On the whole, the process was quite slow.
Motivation:
Editors thoroughly review/survey papers before sending them out for review. Journal seems interested in papers presenting novel physics and/or algorithms rather than simple applications or use cases of existing approaches on current quantum hardware.
Motivation:
The first Reviewer suggested major revisions and provided a series of useful comments. The third Reviewer was very positive and suggested only minor revisions. The second Reviewer was not happy with our approach, why we did not consider many various possibilities. He (she?) listed many aspects, which should be considered in his view. However, it should be evident for experienced tribologists that nearly all of those aspects would not be significant for our tribotesting conditions and the scope of our investigations. The other Reviewers do not suggest to look into any of those factors, risks or variables. We wrote an email to the Editor regarding such a disparity in evaluations, but he did not reverse the decision to reject.
20.7 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
Motivation:
It took a long time (23days) to get a desk rejection.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments could have easily been addressed, but the editor did not give us this opportunity. This shows a lack of respect for the reviewers' time and expertise.
Motivation:
In the end, the rejection boils down to being transparent about the results; none of the reviewers suggested acceptance at this stage, which means a rejection here. Rather slow.
Motivation:
minor revision(deadline 1 month), but a little deadline elongation accepted.
Motivation:
Altogether, this was a positive experience. The reviewer comments were very helpful to improve the quality of our work, and also the editor was helpful and responsive. The production process after acceptance, however, was very annoying and involved a lot of back and forth with Nature's production team, which also caused a rather long delay between acceptance and publication.
Motivation:
After careful review of the work, we regret to say that we are unable to offer to consider it further.
It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of the findings, or their value to others working in this area.
At this stage, we are primarily assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal, and we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal.
Although we cannot offer to publish your paper in Nature, the work may be appropriate for another journal in the Nature Research portfolio. If you wish to explore suitable journals and transfer your manuscript to a journal of your choice, you may use our manuscript transfer portal. If you transfer to Nature-branded journals or to the Communications journals, you will not have to re-supply manuscript metadata and files. This link can be used only once and remains active until used.
It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of the findings, or their value to others working in this area.
At this stage, we are primarily assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal, and we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal.
Although we cannot offer to publish your paper in Nature, the work may be appropriate for another journal in the Nature Research portfolio. If you wish to explore suitable journals and transfer your manuscript to a journal of your choice, you may use our manuscript transfer portal. If you transfer to Nature-branded journals or to the Communications journals, you will not have to re-supply manuscript metadata and files. This link can be used only once and remains active until used.
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
Motivation:
Initial reviewers (2) could find novelty during first review and third reviewer not.... Surprising
Motivation:
It was rejected within 10 minutes. This is both good and bad. They said it was because the topic has already been reviewed previously, so it did not meet their threshold of scientific need.
Motivation:
The initial response time was adequate but there were 3 rounds of R&Rs including a new fourth reviewer who was added during the second R&R. The fourth reviewer ended up being the biggest pain and forced a third round of meaningless R&Rs. In the last R&R the reviewer was demanding that we make pointless changes almost as if to exert power. I felt the editor should have overridden this final decision. Instead the editor had their own comments throughout the process that were in addition to the reviewer comments. From submission to acceptance it took 12 days shy of a year. Not a great experience.
Motivation:
The reasoning was that the topic was not of general interest to their readers. They have a very easy process of submitting a rejected paper to one of their sister journals.
Motivation:
Responses from the editorial office were slow and unhelpful. Managing editor provided limited input during the revision process (form letters only). Multiple attempts were required to contact the managing editor to resolve a problem that arose with the editorial office. Figure quality was degraded at publication time relative to submitted figures.
Motivation:
On the whole, the review process was very very very slow. The editor decided to send for review after 45 days. And negative advice was send back in two weeks. So unbelievable. It took almost two months.
Motivation:
One of the reviews was informative and useful, but the other one was dismissive, nonspecific, and in places, misinformed.