Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
35.3 weeks
35.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Exact reason:
Now that we have had a chance to examine your manuscript in detail, I very much regret to have to tell you that we do not feel able to further consider it for publication in Nature.
It is Nature's policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.
In this case, while we are sure that your data will be of interest to others in your field, we do not feel that the conclusions that can be drawn at this stage represent a conceptual advance sufficient to justify publication in Nature, rather than in a specialty journal.
I regret I can't convey more positive a message on this occasion, especially given the time elapsed -- for which I renew my sincere apologies, yet I do hope that you will consider Nature when preparing other manuscripts in the future.
**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.
All Nature Research journals are editorially independent, and the decision to consider your manuscript will be taken by their own editorial staff. For more information, please see our manuscript transfer FAQ page.
Now that we have had a chance to examine your manuscript in detail, I very much regret to have to tell you that we do not feel able to further consider it for publication in Nature.
It is Nature's policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.
In this case, while we are sure that your data will be of interest to others in your field, we do not feel that the conclusions that can be drawn at this stage represent a conceptual advance sufficient to justify publication in Nature, rather than in a specialty journal.
I regret I can't convey more positive a message on this occasion, especially given the time elapsed -- for which I renew my sincere apologies, yet I do hope that you will consider Nature when preparing other manuscripts in the future.
**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.
All Nature Research journals are editorially independent, and the decision to consider your manuscript will be taken by their own editorial staff. For more information, please see our manuscript transfer FAQ page.
Motivation:
The initial review took an excessively long time (nearly four months) but the quality of the review was reasonably high. Additionally, after responding to the reviewer's comments, the editor quickly informed us of the accepted decision.
Motivation:
Did take quite long for receiving the review, but after asking the editor about the status, he responded quickly that it takes some time because they search for reviewers that are willing to actually have a look at the software and not just the paper. After the review, the process was very quick.
Motivation:
Editorial process is very quick. Editor selected reviewers that had fairly good knowledge about the field.
Motivation:
The submission to acceptance process was smooth.
Motivation:
It took a long time.
Motivation:
As I do not have any articles published I believe this motivated the editor not to accept the article.
The review made by Reviewer 1 was excellent and contributed to my background.
The review made by Reviewer 1 was excellent and contributed to my background.
13.4 weeks
23.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Initially it was Under Review. Then, suddenly, the Editor wrote to me rejecting the paper. Very bad. Without any motivation
Motivation:
very smooth process and excellent reviewer selection. it was clear that they were expert in the field and they easily captured the essence of our work.
Motivation:
we had corrected an over- and mis-interpreted paper previously published in nature neuroscience, yet editor thought the topic was not in the scope of the journal. (i dont want to disrespect authors published in nature neuro) but does that mean nature neuro publishes only wrong paper or what ?
Motivation:
Journal provided very helpful constructive comments along with rejection.
Motivation:
I submitted my paper around 10 am. I got it rejected in the early afternoon, claiming "Our prereview of your manuscript indicates that your manuscript may be more favorably received by another journal". At least they didn't sit it on for 2 months, but I suppose they didn't read much of it.
Motivation:
El proceso editorial de la revista ha sido eficaz y muy oportuno. Las revisiones de los pares externos son respetuosas y acertadas, lo que permite un mejoramiento en el producto publicado.
Motivation:
both refere comments were biased towards another group studying similar things. referes somehow failed (or acted in this way) to see the novelty of the presented data.
I like overall system that Jneurosci provides, but biased reviews killed the paper.
I like overall system that Jneurosci provides, but biased reviews killed the paper.
Motivation:
The time from resubmission to editor review was a very long time.
Motivation:
The editors and the reviewers did a early great job. First, the editors advised me to focus the revision on the most important aspects of the reviewers' comments. And they gave also tips on the way to handle the manuscript. The choice of the reviewers was really benevolent because the reviewers give me tips to improve my style, my main drawback. They really challenged myself, thus I have learnt a lot. Second, the reviewers were complementary. The first one was really hard to satisfy but that have challenged and improved my style. The other one gave tips to improve the logic of the argument, and the presentation of the method and results section. Therefore, Comptabilite-controle-audit is the perfect journal to develop our competencies and get the codes before sending articles to top tier journal. Thank Aude and Jeremy, the editors, for your work.
Motivation:
Overall, the process was relatively quick and painless. One reviewer gave constructive criticism that improved the paper somewhat. The other review, while favourable, was very summaric and did not suggest any changes. Despite the rapid handling of the manuscript, there was still some room for speeding up the process since the revised manuscript curiously sat with the editor for 3 weeks, without being sent out for a second round of peer-review, and without any additional comments or edits being requested by the editor.
Motivation:
Fair reviews from qualified and knowledgeable reviewers. Reasonable time frame and rapid editorial decisions.
Motivation:
One reviewer has given reasonable comments (and ask for "reject and resubmit), but another one offered fairly subjective opinion based on his attitude towards qualitative research (and reject the paper).