Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
High quality reviews, fast handling
Motivation:
We receive one report from a reviewer. The report was clear and detailed and the reviewer explained that the paper's contributions were not significant enough for this journal. He/she also pointed out several problems (motivation and background). The total handling time was a bit too long but the quality of the report was very good.
Motivation:
The review process was quick. The editors and reviewers were fair.
Motivation:
It took the Editorial Office four weeks to come up with this statement:
"We have considered your manuscript for publication in JMSC and regrettably conclude that this manuscript is not suited for publication in this journal.
Please note that this does not pass judgment on the technical aspects of your research. The decision is solely based on the contributions of the manuscript as the findings do not indicate significant new advances in the understanding of materials science that justify publication in JMSC." The member of the Editorial Office, who checked our manuscript, had H-index of 13.
"We have considered your manuscript for publication in JMSC and regrettably conclude that this manuscript is not suited for publication in this journal.
Please note that this does not pass judgment on the technical aspects of your research. The decision is solely based on the contributions of the manuscript as the findings do not indicate significant new advances in the understanding of materials science that justify publication in JMSC." The member of the Editorial Office, who checked our manuscript, had H-index of 13.
Motivation:
If the manuscript not suitable with a scop of a journal, it should be rejected in couple of days, not after around 5 weeks.
Motivation:
Editors didn't understand the objectives and methods of the paper. One even said that there are already a huge number of publications doing sophisticated data analysis without it, which makes no sense, since this could be said for everything in life: we won't need a printer because we already have the Gutenberg's press, we won't need TV because we already have radio, etc. Very poor understanding of the topics. Speed: 10/10. Review: 0/10. Overall score: 1/10.
Motivation:
The review process was a bit overshadowed by the fact that the editor had to ask 12 potential reviewers to receive two reviews. The communication with the editor was very effective and constructive. As to the reviews, from the suggestions of the first reviewer it was possible to conclude that this was an expert in the field. The comments from the other reviewer were a bit out of place and one could only conclude that the reviewer was not the field expert.
Motivation:
Even though my manuscript was rejected, I was impressed by the speedy and thorough review process.
Motivation:
Reviewers seemed to have zero knowledge about machine learning topics, which I think it was the main reason for rejection.