Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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 judgments 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 work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications.
In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications.
Motivation:
After our careful reading and team discussion, unfortunately we are not seeing your manuscript as a strong candidate for MP and thus can not recommend it for external peer reviews.
Motivation:
Good process. Good journal.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast and the reviewers' reports detailed with many useful comments.
Motivation:
The review process was overall good and efficient. We got comments from two reviewers, both liked the idea of the paper but recommended a major revision that required a lot of effort from our side. The reviewers fully understood the paper and their comments really made the paper better. Overall, great review process, fast and efficient.
Motivation:
The review comments were not constructive and overly focused on theory, not the method of the study.
Motivation:
The manuscript was previously reviewed by another same-tier journal. They rejected it but had offered more positive feedback and constructive comments. On the contrary, JAIS was not offering comments that might help improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
We received two reports. The first one was focused and asked for additional robustness tests to add credibility to the findings. These comments were useful and helped us improve the paper. The second report clearly indicated that the reviewer did not "liked" the paper and provided negative and somehow irrelevant comments regarding the methodology. Both reports had relatively contradictory perspectives about the paper.
Motivation:
The editor consulted another editor and they both decided that the scope was too narrow for this journal. Our study included multiple countries, and trophic interactions across multiple plant and animal species in agricultural systems so we were a bit surprised by the result. Apparently you need to study a single mammal species in one system for it to be broad enough in scope. My impression is that the journal prioirtizes novelty and charismatic taxa even though it isn't explicitly stated. They offered to transfer the paper to their new 'pay to play' open access journal "Conservation Science and Practice". We couldn't afford the publication fee so we weren't able to publish with them.
The response we got was positive though and overall an ok experience. I wish it hadn't have taken almost 3 weeks to get desk rejected though.
The response we got was positive though and overall an ok experience. I wish it hadn't have taken almost 3 weeks to get desk rejected though.
Motivation:
The reviewers gave very sound and compelling reasons for rejecting the paper. It helped us improve the content, and we eventually got it accepted in a good venue.
Motivation:
Editor thought the study was well conducted and interesting but too specialized for the journal. They offered immediate transfer to their 'pay to play' open access journal. Based this experience and comments from colleagues, it seems like no one really knows what ecology letters is looking for. It doesn't seem to be novelty or scope.
"Unfortunately, the question, methods and scope are not sufficient to warrant publication in Ecology Letters. I would encourage the Authors to consider submitting their work to a journal with less pressure for space, such as, for example, Ecology & Evolution"
"Unfortunately, the question, methods and scope are not sufficient to warrant publication in Ecology Letters. I would encourage the Authors to consider submitting their work to a journal with less pressure for space, such as, for example, Ecology & Evolution"
Motivation:
Tough journal to publish in but totally worth it trying.
Motivation:
Fast review process, friendly reviewers.
Motivation:
They decided that the topic was not an important enough advance to warrent publication in Nature Ecology and Evolution. They discussed the content of the paper with colleagues at Nature Communications who said they would send it out for review. We transfered to NC and it was sent immediately for review.
Motivation:
Very quick response time (imm rejection). The decision was shortly explained and valid arguments were given.
Motivation:
The rejection was fast but ultimately fair.
Motivation:
The editor seemed to have rejected it without giving it a read,
Motivation:
Good reviewing but took some time.
Motivation:
Constructive and critical reviews. Helpful editorial guidance. Very rapid handling time. All in all, very good experience.
Motivation:
I receive a good amount of reviews (3). However, their comments were superficial. It seems they were not experts on the field. Moreover, they did not receive my revised manuscript and it was handled by editors. They carefully revised the manuscript and provide several comments for the final version. The communication with the assistant editor was always fluid.
Motivation:
We submitted a pair of back-to-back papers as a full story to be considered by Sci. Adv.
The first half of the story was out for review, we do not know the result as of yet (Dec 19th 2019).
The paper being rejectedhere is the second half of the story. It is of great importance (at least we think so), but was rejected without review.
The first half of the story was out for review, we do not know the result as of yet (Dec 19th 2019).
The paper being rejectedhere is the second half of the story. It is of great importance (at least we think so), but was rejected without review.
Motivation:
It was my first publication, I got comments from three reviewers. After revise and resubmit I got three reports from the same reviewers and finally after revise and resubmit I got acceptance from the editor.
Motivation:
The journal of antibiotics has an outstanding review and my manuscript was improved after revision.
Motivation:
Review process was very very long. First we got one reviewer and 2 month later another 2 reviewers. This came as a surprise. It was all together some what confusing and took to much time.
Motivation:
Even if the waiting period was average for a journal of this calibre, I would have expected after 4.5months to receive at least 2 peer reviews that could have helped me amend the paper better for the next submission. What made it worse was that despite the rejection, the feedback was generally positive and the paper could have easily been accepted with correction. Again, this made it more difficult when reworking the paper.
Motivation:
After waiting for 2 years and reviewed by 4 reviewers, my manuscript was accepted and positive remarks given by 3 reviewers. The last and 4th reviewer has given negative remarks without suggesting any changes to be done. Therefore editor has make decision to revise again but without any remarks and making long delay, I have decided to withdraw my paper from journal after wasting 2 years.