Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
My experience with this journal was really the worst. Non-ethical with the authors.
Motivation:
The time for initial decision (two weeks) was a bit too long for a journal claiming "2 Avg Days Initial Editor Screening".
Motivation:
Fast first decision.
Motivation:
After 2 months and 10 days of wait, we received the reject notification from the editor, motivated by meagre and minimal review. The reviewer stated our dataset was too small, and recommended to turn down the article.
I agree that the dataset was small, but that's not a good reason to reject an article in my opinion.
It looked like the reviewer was unable to assess the scientific relevance of our study results.
I agree that the dataset was small, but that's not a good reason to reject an article in my opinion.
It looked like the reviewer was unable to assess the scientific relevance of our study results.
Motivation:
Contribution is mostly empirical, not enough theoretical.
7.4 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
17.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
When reviewers have different opinion about a manuscript, it is very hard to please both. If that happens, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a dialogue with the editor before starting the revision.
Motivation:
Submitting my manuscript to Heliyon Environment was a great decision. The process was quick and and easy to follow. 3 weeks after submission my manuscript came already with the reviewers comments. The editorial team contacted three reviewers who did a thorough revision of my manuscript. After implementing the suggestions and corrections recommended the quality of the manuscript substantially improved. During the second round of revisions we had only minor corrections after which it was accepted without delay. I can say it was a fair revision process.
Motivation:
The editor and reviewers responded in a timely, constructive and efficient manner. The process was straightforward. The reviews were beneficial in strengthening the paper for publication.
Motivation:
"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. Such decisions are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers do not meet the criteria for publication in Nature Communications. These editorial judgements are based on such considerations 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 interesting work ..., I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings are sufficiently developed to justify publication in Nature Communications.
Although we cannot offer to publish your manuscript, I suggest that you consider transferring your manuscript to our sister journal, <i>Communications Biology</i>, a selective open-access Nature Research title led by an in-house editorial team that publishes research bringing new insight into a focused area of biology ."
In this case, while we do not question the validity of your interesting work ..., I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings are sufficiently developed to justify publication in Nature Communications.
Although we cannot offer to publish your manuscript, I suggest that you consider transferring your manuscript to our sister journal, <i>Communications Biology</i>, a selective open-access Nature Research title led by an in-house editorial team that publishes research bringing new insight into a focused area of biology ."
Motivation:
Out of the 3 reviews I received, 2 were of specially high quality; both of the suggested revisions but the comments were reasonable and they made me realise where I didn't include enogh details of my analysis in the first version. The third review was quite problematic, though, as this person was evidently biased against the framework and repeatedly misquited both my research and that of others.
I highly appreciated the constructive way of handling from the editor, who also evidently took enougth time to read through the paper and make suggestions both during the revision process and during editing.
I highly appreciated the constructive way of handling from the editor, who also evidently took enougth time to read through the paper and make suggestions both during the revision process and during editing.
Motivation:
Though the one reviewer assigned was overall helpful and professional, I cannot say the same about the handling editor. My paper was rejected based on a single review report (which was not all that negative to motivate rejection). I was left with the impression that my paper was rejected because they did not want to spend time finding additional referees.
Motivation:
The content which I have presented in my manuscript seems to be novel and productive information. Hence, Nature biotechnology journal is exactly fitted for review.
Motivation:
Editorial decisions were fast and seemed fair, reviews were of very good quality and the editor also gave useful comments on the manuscript.
Motivation:
After sending a pre-submission early on (which is required for perspective papers in the journal), we were invited to submit the full manuscript. We got a desk rejection, so we found the pre-submission step useless. The decision was very fast, so no time was wasted.
Motivation:
The reviewer just provided two sentences saying that our article would have been more appropriate for some other journal.
Motivation:
Really fast process and high-quality reviews. They do not strongly argue rejection, but this journal receives many manuscripts, and the editorial decision is reasonable. I recommend to submit here and I will do it again in the future.
Motivation:
We originally submitted to Nature Ecology and Evolution and it was desk-rejected after ~10 days with the option to transfer to Nature Communications. The original turn around time (5 weeks) was very reasonable. The reviewers requested substantial edits and the editor gave us 3-6 months to resubmit. This was also at the beginning of COVID19 so we took almost the whole time to complete the revision. Afterward, the second decision time (~7 weeks) was very reasonable considering the current state of the world. The editor gave us provisional acceptance pending addressing the reviewer's minor requests and formatting for the journal. Overall, a great experience, but I still don't think it's worth the inordinately high charges.
6.9 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
We made an appeal for review. Appeal got accepted and they sent the manuscript for review and rejected within a week with two reviewers reports.
We do not feel the manuscript was thoroughly assessed, rejection was due to it not being in the top 10%. It is not clear what top 10% means if work is rejected even even though it does not have a strong precedent and had potentially very broad applications. The recommendation was to transfer to Chem E J. It appears to us that the manuscript only received a cursory look (no details on why it is not in the top 10%). A response from us to the editor's decision was not followed through in a timely manner, requiring a reminder. At the time of the reminder, we decided to withdraw the manuscript and submit to another venue that has been much fairer in its handling of our manuscripts, and to avoid further delays. It is our view that good papers are shunted to other journals within a publisher to promote IFs of those journals.
We do not feel the manuscript was thoroughly assessed, rejection was due to it not being in the top 10%. It is not clear what top 10% means if work is rejected even even though it does not have a strong precedent and had potentially very broad applications. The recommendation was to transfer to Chem E J. It appears to us that the manuscript only received a cursory look (no details on why it is not in the top 10%). A response from us to the editor's decision was not followed through in a timely manner, requiring a reminder. At the time of the reminder, we decided to withdraw the manuscript and submit to another venue that has been much fairer in its handling of our manuscripts, and to avoid further delays. It is our view that good papers are shunted to other journals within a publisher to promote IFs of those journals.
Motivation:
Efficient and fast review process. The quality of the reviews this time was great. The editor handled the submission very well.
Motivation:
The editor handled the paper swiftly and the comments of reviewers were very helpful in streamlining and improving the paper.
Motivation:
The overall handling of the manuscript was very pleasing and the reviewers' comments were very constructive. The time in review could be shorter but can be seen as justified due to the selection of appropriate reviewers - anyway, it was acceptable.
Motivation:
The feedback from Ceramics International was quick. The review quality was acceptable, although it was only one reviewer.
Motivation:
Journal editors and reviewers were very efficient.