Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript and the initial process was very slow. I got periodic responses that appeared to be automatic form letters and/or that they were having trouble finding an academic editor and reviewers. Eventually I received a rejection. However that decision was based on the comments from 1 reviewer and it was apparent that the paper was not read, nor were the comments about the content of the submission nor were the reasons for rejection, logical. Consequently I appealed the decision. That was a mistake because it took an additional 7 months to get a decision. I would get periodic emails apologizing for the delays indicating that a decision would come soon. Eventually following numerous email exchanges, I demanded that a decision be made. A week later the paper was rejected based on the opinion of one reviewer.. Having published numerous papers over the years I was disappointed but can accept the decisions. However no paper should take 10 months from submission to final decision, and one would expect that if reviews come back that are poor themselves, an additional reviewer would be identified.
Motivation:
Yes, very detailed suggestions from reviewers, seem to be fair handling of our paper.
Motivation:
Fast decision.
Motivation:
The reviewers and the editor rejected our manuscript because they said it was missing a comparison with some alternative methods.
It is true that we did not include the comparison with these alternative methods, but for a specific reason: because they were off-topic.
Completely not understandable.
Also, the journal website promises a fast review process of just 25 days from submission to the first notification, but actually they took 52 days to inform us about the outcome: the double expected days,
It is true that we did not include the comparison with these alternative methods, but for a specific reason: because they were off-topic.
Completely not understandable.
Also, the journal website promises a fast review process of just 25 days from submission to the first notification, but actually they took 52 days to inform us about the outcome: the double expected days,
5.7 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
My co-author submitted the manuscript in the wrong format, without the supplementary materials, and the journal staff took several emails to communicate with us and make sure they had all the correct files and our correct addresses before they sent it out for review.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
"I regret to inform you that the PNAS Editorial Board has declined your manuscript for further consideration. We receive many more good papers than we can publish and the Board must carefully weigh which papers merit external review. The expert who served as editor concluded that although this work is interesting, it does not have the broad appeal needed for PNAS and is better suited for a more specialized journal.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PNAS. I am sorry we cannot be more encouraging this time, and I hope you will consider submitting future work to PNAS"
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PNAS. I am sorry we cannot be more encouraging this time, and I hope you will consider submitting future work to PNAS"
Motivation:
Solid handling of the manuscript and decent reviews. One reviewer was highly engaged while the other provided only brief comments, but the editorial instructions helped us to navigate the process well.
Motivation:
The review process was fast.
The reviewers' comments were strong and precise, but meaningful.
The reviewers' comments were strong and precise, but meaningful.
Motivation:
We are satisfied with the submission process as well as with the reviewers because it was fast and not as burdensome as it is in other journals. The submission process saves time and that was very valuable for us.
Motivation:
The review process was horribly sluggish. The ~190days for the first decision is unacceptable.
Motivation:
At least 8 points of (in my opinion) minor relevance were presented as reasons for the rejection by the editor. For example, changes in a few units, no plural in the keywords, column headers of a table shouldn´t be presented in a vertical way...
Motivation:
Revision comments of the editor were send back after 3 weeks (even though there were nearly no working days due to christmas eve and new year holiday time) and of high quality.
Motivation:
Very quick response by the editor, appreciated.
Motivation:
The quick response was highly appreciated
Motivation:
Favorite experience at a journal thus far. Editors were responsive, transparent, and fair. From my perspective, it felt like the editors made an effort to keep the review and editorial process efficient with as few gaps in handling as possible.
Motivation:
Overall acceptance rate and editorial rejection rate is about 30% and 25%, respectively. In the case of revision, "Your revision must include..." or "Your resubmission must include..." will be described. In former case, it is rather positive, however, in latter case, there is a risk for rejection after review.
In recent days, competitive neuroscience journals such as eLife, Nature Communications, Scientific reports were released and the impact factor of JNeurosci was declined. However, a journal that performs fair pair review is still JNeurosci.
In recent days, competitive neuroscience journals such as eLife, Nature Communications, Scientific reports were released and the impact factor of JNeurosci was declined. However, a journal that performs fair pair review is still JNeurosci.
Motivation:
The changes proposed by reviewers were quite interesting and contributed to the paper improvement; however, the first review was slow and took too much time to be accomplished.