Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The turnaround time was very short and the process was very efficient. The quality of the referee reports was not the best, but I've experienced receiving referee reports of much poorer quality after a significantly longer wait.
Motivation:
The reviewers were all experts in the field and enable to propose references to further discuss our arguments.
Their carefull reading pointed tiny points (such as the use of abreviation) that still need improvements.
Their reviews help the manuscript revision.
Their carefull reading pointed tiny points (such as the use of abreviation) that still need improvements.
Their reviews help the manuscript revision.
Motivation:
I believe that the manuscript got lost, because a second reviewer agreed to review, but did never do the review. After contacting the editor the first time 6 month and a second time 9 month later, I received the feedback of the first reviewer. In the end, this was nice.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 197.6 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I sent reminders to the editor after 3 months, and kept getting emails that either our paper was waiting for reviews which were due within 2 weeks or that they were still looking for a reviewer. After 6.5 months I gave up and withdrew the paper.
Motivation:
Just the usual "not enough surprise" comment.
14.7 weeks
30.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Overall, I am happy with the revision process. Although I had to revise the manuscript twice, I feel its quality improved noticeably. I really appreciate the great effort made by the reviewers (specially one of them).
Motivation:
We were terribly frustrated by the slow pace of the editorial and production staff at Nature Communications during the entire publishing process. You'd expect better service considering their exorbitant publishing fee.
Motivation:
One reviewer suggested additional genetic experiments, so we had to grow plants (for 16 weeks) and report the results. The manuscript definitively improved after revision. After resubmision the editorial decision was made in 40 days. The editor was professional, understanding and polite.
Motivation:
Editors were very gracious and helpful in dealing with my medical leave that took place while paper was under review and was still happening when I got the decision
Motivation:
Manuscript was sent to two reviewers. Reviews were insightful and helped improve the manuscript. Both suggested minor revision. The revised manuscript was accepted for publication.
Motivation:
Very fast manuscript handling, good communication with the editor. Blind review required.
Motivation:
"In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work on [topic], I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Motivation:
Actually, we initially submitted this as a comment to an article previously published in the same journal, so there was a review prior to the first review shown here. We were generally pleased with the reviewers' comments and with higher level editors responsiveness. However, the reviews and the editorial handling of the reviews took too long. We had to repeatedly ask for updates.
1.7 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I was satisfied both with the quality of the reviews I received for this manuscript and the time taken from first submission to acceptance.
Motivation:
Reviewing process extremely long!!
Motivation:
Generally, the review process was quick and helpful. I do think that the second reviewer kept raising issues that we had already addressed and the editor perhaps paid a little too much attention to these remarks.
Motivation:
The reviewers were psychologists, although the paper was phenomenology. This almost determines rejection.
Motivation:
The first round of review required only minor changes to the introduction and discussion (no method or results changes at all), but the editor decided to "reject with a recommendation to resubmit". Seemingly an attempt to manage their review speed metrics.
On re-submission, one reviewer was unable to be re-engaged, and so a new reviewer was found. This new reviewer's comments were the most critical of the manuscript, but would have been very easily addressed if we had the chance. Unfortunately the editors decided to reject without giving us an opportunity to address these concerns many months into a long process. Overall, slow process and disappointing editorial decisions.
On re-submission, one reviewer was unable to be re-engaged, and so a new reviewer was found. This new reviewer's comments were the most critical of the manuscript, but would have been very easily addressed if we had the chance. Unfortunately the editors decided to reject without giving us an opportunity to address these concerns many months into a long process. Overall, slow process and disappointing editorial decisions.
Motivation:
In my view, scientific journals should not make recommendations to other journals when rejecting a paper, especially when the suggestion is related to an alternative and lucrative marketplace of Open Access "sister" journals that charge amounts of money.
Motivation:
critical approaches only
Motivation:
Excellent communication, fast handling, constructive referee reports, great overall experience.
Motivation:
The speed of review was quick. Reviewers commented step by step issues of manuscript with suggestions what have to be improved. Overall impressions of submitting manuscript is positive. Will try to submit new manuscript again.
Motivation:
I have seen comments stating that the Plos One editorial process is quite slow, but while it did take a while for us to publish, it had more to do with addressing the reviewers comments than the editorial process itself. The comments were quite helpful, and the manuscript was greatly improved because of them. It was quite clear that our manuscript was evaluated by specialists in our subject area.
Motivation:
The process was fair and quick. I was a little weirded out by the inclusion of a new reviewer not he second round of reviews. At this point the changes needed where minimal.
Motivation:
In my view, the journals should not make recommendations to other journals, especially when the suggestion is related to an alternative and lucrative marketplace of Open Acess "sister" journals that require substantial amounts of processing charges.