Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
With the immediate reject, they did offer to transfer the paper to ChemistrySelect or ChemistryOpen. The publication fee for ChemistryOpen was discounted by 20% in the offer; however it is still steep at 1440 Euros.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent out for review almost immediately after submission (the journal notified me it was in review the day after submission). I received a response from editor, with two reviews, indicating ms required modification three weeks later. After making the suggested revisions, ms was accepted the same day I submitted the revisions. A very straightforward and efficient process.
Motivation:
Fast, efficient handling. Even three reviewers have been chosen by the editor, but the majority of reviewers obviously lacked sufficient biomechanical background to process and judge the manuscript.
Motivation:
Editor blindly followed the instructions of the second reviewer who made too generic comments on the quality of paper, while the first one found it ready to be published. The review of the second reviewer was not justified. I think that a third reviewer should have been called to evaluate the paper
Motivation:
The reviewer pointed out necessary changes to make my data more interpretable.
Motivation:
We submitted our manuscript to Genome Research via BioRxiv and it was sent to review about a week later. We didn't get our reviewer's reports back until nearly 4 months of time had passed! The reviewers were all very pleased with the paper and only requested some additional bioinformatics analysis and clarifications. We turned around our revised paper in a few weeks and it still took them another two months to accept the paper. Really pleased with the outcome, but with the lengthy review process, I'd be reluctant to submit to Genome Research in the future.
Motivation:
I had three reviewers; two of them were highly positive, and one was more negative. The very negative comments from the third reviewer were more personal rather scientific-based. The manuscript improved significantly because of the reviewers who made reasonable questions and made me improve the final presentation of my work.
Motivation:
The feedback from the reviewers really improved the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
The reviewer's comment improved the quality of the paper. The Editor played a very solid role in speeding up the review process.
Motivation:
Reviewers expert on the field. The process was really fast and the editor was really communicative. He did not send it out to an unnecessary third round of reviews after minor changes. However, the paper handling by Elsevier is bad, proof plenty of mistakes, references without crossref, and errors even after publication.
Motivation:
As a broad topic journal, it is sometimes difficult to understand the exact scope of what constitutes applied physics versus something else. Their website on this question was not very helpful. However, they are excellent in terms of keeping the authors informed every step of the way.
Motivation:
After one round of major revision to address three reviewer's conctructive comments, a second round of minor revision to address one reviewer's remaining comments, we spend another week to address the journal editors' extensive and expert comments to the text and figures.
Motivation:
My paper was rejected but the review process was just one month. It is a top journal with a high number of submissions. It is impressive how they obtained three reviews of high quality in a short period of time.
Motivation:
The editorial staff was professional and quick. Although I disagreed with their findings (and was ultimately proven correct), I appreciated their speed to come to a decision and the balanced manner they presented it.
Motivation:
Overall great experience. The second paper I've published with PNAS and so far they have both been nice experiences. I would definitely submit another article to them again in the future.
Motivation:
The paper was not general interest enough for the journal.