Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
They could not use their own submission system. They missed our resubmission. They lost the additional materials we submitted. The quality of the reviews were not good.
Motivation:
we recognise the potential interest of your findings for specialists. However, I regret that we cannot conclude that the paper offers the sort of particularly striking new insights with far-reaching implications that would be likely to excite the immediate interest of the broad scientific readership of Nature. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal.
Motivation:
Handling was extremely poor, with long times to allocate reviewers and for review. Manuscript was initially rejected, despite meeting the journal’s publication criteria; an appeal was successful. Review of the revised manuscript took 3 months.
Motivation:
Desk rejected very rapidly for poor fit. Questionable decision, but at least they were fast.
Motivation:
Overall this was a good experience, with the exception of the waiting times, which were a bit longer than expected. The editor was in general hands off (the ms was not in his field), but eventually helpful to deal with a particularly hostile reviewer.
Motivation:
The process was amazingly fast, even though the decision was not what I wanted. Some of the criticism was quite good.
10.9 weeks
26.3 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript on March 25. On May 5th they asked me to send a graphical abstract. After I submitted that, the manuscript was sent for reviewers. So, I lost like 5 weeks. Support staff was helpful, but they couldn't do anything with the delay.
Motivation:
I received a rapid desk reject because the editor thought the contribution was not strong enough for a journal of this calibre. Hard to take, but the editor gave some helpful pointers, including suggestions for some good quality journals that he thought might accept the work. Moreover, he gave me very good quality feedback on the manuscript, including one that I found extremely helpful in making revisions. So, though the outcome was disappointing, I consider it a positive one overall.
Motivation:
Long review time.
Motivation:
The handling of submitted manuscripts by the journal was extremely too poor. The manuscript kept pending with the editor without sending for review nor making a decision whether to accept or reject even after several months of inquiry.
Motivation:
The process took too long.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments suggest that reviewers didn't read the article thoroughly, and possibly skipped the whole Supplementary Information file.
Motivation:
My opinion is negative because of the time they took to give me the answer: two months to assign the handling editor, then they sent the ms for revision, and the answer arrived almost in three months.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow and there was no reply to my follow up emails during that process. There is no official information about review time as well.
Motivation:
All feedback from the referees was very useful. One of the reports included a comprehensive list of comments to be addressed, and although they took work to implement, the revised manuscript came out much stronger and clearer than its initial version. The reviewing process was very efficient, the referees were helpful, and the whole process was extremely fast and efficient.