Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very speedy response, though this was for an unsolicited commentary piece rather than a research paper which may have been easier to reach a decision on quickly. Excellent and thoughtful review received which was clearly from a subject expert.
Motivation:
Communication during all stages was better than expected and those I spoke with to query any delays were very responsive. Each stage from submission to receipt of reviews/decision was around 8 weeks, which felt lengthy but not unreasonable.
Motivation:
There was a relatively long delay in receiving the peer review and editorial decision but this was acknowledged and apologised for by the editors. Despite the lengthy time between submission and rejection it did at least go to a reviewer and the comments were very fair and clearly from a topic expert.
Motivation:
Very speedy in comparison with other journals I've submitted to in terms of turnaround between submission and receiving reviews. Ample time given to revise according to comments, and peer reviews were of high quality. Would recommend.
Motivation:
Very quick rejection from editorial team due to lack of space, helpful to allow us to resubmit quickly to another journal.
Motivation:
Very speedy rejection by Editor-in-Chief during screening as the topic wasn't of sufficient interest for that journal. Helpful to get it back so quickly so that I could resubmit elsewhere.
Motivation:
It took two months to receive a standard desk rejection, which is disappointing on its own. The lack of feedback or rationale for rejection is even worse. However, the worst part was we had new data that strengthened the story and we contacted editorial office in order to try to update the manuscript. However, there was no reply from the staff and the manuscript tracking system has no apparent way to withdraw manuscripts under consideration. This whole process with Science (~ 1 month until a standard desk reject) and then two months with Science Advances has been very frustrating. In the future, I will definitely not be transferring manuscripts from Science to Science Advances.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 273.6 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
In between I contacted the editoral board but the EIC/AE are not helpful at all.
When I withdraw the paper, the EIC did not even apologize. I do not know why it can be listed as a Grade A journal.
When I withdraw the paper, the EIC did not even apologize. I do not know why it can be listed as a Grade A journal.
Motivation:
The editorial assessment seems relevant. Wil update manuscript for raised concerns and resubmit.
Motivation:
The reviewing process was very slow. It took almost three months to be rejected without corrections to the paper.
Motivation:
Frustrating not to get a review.
Motivation:
It took a very long time to be rejected. One reviewer was quite insulting in the use of his language. It would have been better had the editor sent it out again for a more neutral response.
Motivation:
Comments are fair but I wish the reviewer can be more constructive by offering more specific comments.
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.