Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Handling was quick. I received four reviews with the decision to reject the manuscript. Two reviews were very positive. The third review seemed neutral, but in conclusion, the reviewer suggested do not publish our work. The fourth review was overly destructive. The reviewer was rather out of the field. His / her report was simply wrong and ignorant.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "XXX" to Science. Thank you for your patience—this is an incredibly busy and difficult time for us, both professionally and personally. After evaluation and discussion between the relevant editors, we have ultimately decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The consensus view is that the paper will be of great interest to those in this field, but it is not one of our most competitive submissions.
We receive over 10,000 papers per year, and therefore only send those papers most likely to be published in Science for in-depth review. We select papers on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not at all a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our time and space limitations.
During submission, you requested transfer to Science Advances should Science decide not to proceed with your manuscript. We are pleased that you are choosing to transfer to our high-level, interdisciplinary, open access journal. Please use the link below to confirm the transfer. Transfer will not initiate unless you click this link and, if you choose not to, you are free to submit elsewhere.
We receive over 10,000 papers per year, and therefore only send those papers most likely to be published in Science for in-depth review. We select papers on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not at all a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our time and space limitations.
During submission, you requested transfer to Science Advances should Science decide not to proceed with your manuscript. We are pleased that you are choosing to transfer to our high-level, interdisciplinary, open access journal. Please use the link below to confirm the transfer. Transfer will not initiate unless you click this link and, if you choose not to, you are free to submit elsewhere.
Motivation:
I had a very positive experience with this journal and had we not used the entire two months we were given to address the reviewers' comments, the manuscript could have been accepted even faster.
Motivation:
The journal is fast, as usual.
I don't know why it sent out to 4 reviewers. Anyway, 2 recommended minor revision, 1 recommended major revision with actually 2 minor questions, while 1 recommended rejection. The one recommended rejection cited that the work is similar to what has been published, however, it was clearly different material, and there is extensive discussion on the performance and fabrication. The reviewer even said "There are many other technical details that are unclear and inconsistencies..." without mentioning anything specific. This reviewer also rated the novelty, broad interest, and presentation to the lowest possible, quite different from all other reviewers who rated as top 5% or 15%.
We decided to repeal, and gave a very detailed response. However, it was quickly rejected, without mentioning anything specific in the decision letter. "The editors have read and discussed your manuscript, comments, referee reports, and related work. I am afraid that we ultimately find that this manuscript does not reach the increasingly high thresholds that we have had to set at ACS Nano. " I guess this is a templated response.
I guess this is a bad luck. I had previously good experience with this journal, and had a few publications.
I don't know why it sent out to 4 reviewers. Anyway, 2 recommended minor revision, 1 recommended major revision with actually 2 minor questions, while 1 recommended rejection. The one recommended rejection cited that the work is similar to what has been published, however, it was clearly different material, and there is extensive discussion on the performance and fabrication. The reviewer even said "There are many other technical details that are unclear and inconsistencies..." without mentioning anything specific. This reviewer also rated the novelty, broad interest, and presentation to the lowest possible, quite different from all other reviewers who rated as top 5% or 15%.
We decided to repeal, and gave a very detailed response. However, it was quickly rejected, without mentioning anything specific in the decision letter. "The editors have read and discussed your manuscript, comments, referee reports, and related work. I am afraid that we ultimately find that this manuscript does not reach the increasingly high thresholds that we have had to set at ACS Nano. " I guess this is a templated response.
I guess this is a bad luck. I had previously good experience with this journal, and had a few publications.
Motivation:
It took so much time before receiving the first decision. The status of the article is not available for the authors. This is so stressful. Then, I asked the status several times. The answers from the office were not so slow as the processing for review.
Motivation:
Reviewers comments recieved within ~ 6 weeks. Very kind reviewers comments with only slight editorial changes. However, took a while to process slight editorial changes, edits to proofs and open access. There is no way to check if your paper has made it passed the editorial stage prior to reviewers comments.
Motivation:
Although the process took more time than I expected, I received two very positive reports, with minor suggestions. They were very technical and precise. It was clear that both reviewers were of high caliber and I am not only very happy with the overall process, but also very confidend after reading the reports and the observations made by the reviewers.
Motivation:
One reviewer was very thorough and caught some small inconsistencies and even requested some new material (a little bit tangential to the work) to be added. But, we considered his comments very appropriate and definitely contributed to the final paper. The second reviewer made a very superficial reading of the text, mostly commenting on the aesthetics of the text.
Motivation:
Overall, review comments were constructive, and the handling of our manuscript was excellent. However, I think it would be great if the entire review timeline could be shortened.
Motivation:
This was my first experience with Optics Letters and I have nothing but good things to say. The peer review had quick turnaround, the reviewer's comments and questions were critical yet entirely fair and through answering them our letter turned out much better than it was at time of submission. Plus, OSA doesn't charge unless you'd like your figures in color print (or would like to give a donation), which is refreshing. For these reasons, I look forward to submitting work to OL again in the future.
Motivation:
The manuscript was assessed by a Senior Editor in consultation with four members of the Board of Reviewing Editors and results were found not to be of enough broad significance for the publication in eLife.
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
Motivation:
The review comments are helpful to improve the manuscript. Also, the editor gave us a positive comments. The reviewing process was fair and constructive.
I would like to submit this journal again.
I would like to submit this journal again.
Motivation:
Long review process but high quality of feedback
Motivation:
Good time to first decision. Reasonable reviews.
Motivation:
The initial review time was far longer than what is reported as their average turn-around time on their website. The handling editor did, however, reach out to notify us of the prolonged wait time and made efforts to speed the remainder of the review process. The reviewers comments were helpful and seemed to be from peers who were indeed experts in the field-of-interest.
Motivation:
One reviewer gave me constructive advice, but the other wrote somewhat negative emotional comments on the submitted manuscript. Associate editor stated that he also read the manuscript and that the submitted ms was a recycling paper I had published before. However, I was sure that he did not read the ms nor my published paper before ,because the published year he noted was wrong and the analyses and results differed completely.